Long before psychotherapy was invented, healers have been using stories to help their people cope with life’s adversities. More recently, storytellers such as Joseph Campbell, Robert Bly, and Clarissa Pinkola Estes have demonstrated the power of myth for attaining personal transformation. Fannie Flagg dramatized this process in Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. Here, the elderly Mrs. Threadgoode inspired Evelyn, a dowdy, submissive housewife, by recounting her family tale. Through this encounter, Evelyn was able to discover her own inner strength (Towanda!).
Many such tales have been recorded and preserved as folklore. Countless others, though, are simply passed down orally from generation to generation. Many of these secret treasures risk oblivion in our mass culture, much as medicinal herbs are threatened with extinction from industrial society’s denudation of the tropical rain forests. I wish to share a particular tale from the Daniel family which has proven quite helpful for coping with stress and avoiding the pitfalls of “codependency” in helping others with their problems. So here’s the story of “The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats,” as told to me by my Uncle Lester:
The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats
“For generations, since long before the Europeans invaded the New World, people have been drawn to the quicksand beds of Caramba Flats. Not that anyone actually wanted to get stuck there, mind you. For miles around, as far as the eye could see, there is only desert, with little life. But here there is water, with its promise of restoration and renewal. Thus, people have sought out these potholes of clear, cool water that pocket the sandy beds. The Native Americans were well aware of the hazards of the quicksand. Yet through their caution and reverence for nature, they could reliably retrieve the water without being sucked under.
“For the Europeans it was quite another matter. Steeped in generations of civilization, they had lost touch with the ways of nature. They had neither the wariness nor the respect that such natural phenomena warrant. After days on the arid plains, they would catch sight of the shimmering water, and it was no mirage. Then they would dash down the nearby dunes and plunge headlong toward the pools. Before they knew it they were chest-deep in quicksand. More often than not, they would panic. And the more they panicked, the quicker the slurry would suck them under. Often, for just long enough to drown before their limp corpses float back up to the surface. From such instances came the lore of quicksand as the great gobbler of life.
“Now, I include these grizzly details because they convey a tragic irony. Namely, we are lighter than this mixture of sand and water. As such, we naturally float in it. Only by struggling and thrashing about do people dig themselves in deeper.
“With so many having lost their lives in these beds, authorities posted wardens to rescue the unsuspecting pioneers. While knowledgeable about quicksand, the first wardens had little understanding of rescue techniques. Legend has it that several early wardens had lost their lives, pulled under by the very victims they were trying to save. Tales provide graphic details of desperate victims clutching at the wardens and climbed up their backs. Thus, they submerged the hapless wardens, drowning them. With no printing presses there at the time, it is now impossible to separate history from myth.
“Whether these tales are actually true, later wardens developed rescue techniques to avoid the desperate clutches of the victims. Rather than venturing into the slurry themselves, they heaved ropes out to the reckless pioneers. Then, they anchored the other end of the rope to a boulder or a stump. This measure allowed the victims to pull themselves out with their own strength.
“Now it would be imprudent to say that the settlers actually tamed Caramba Flats. After all, nothing natural can be truly tamed. Still, they developed a respect for those quicksand beds that allowed them to establish the nearby community of Caramba Flats, right out there in the middle of the arid wasteland.”
The Moral
Now, my Uncle Lester is not the sort who leaves it to your imagination to fill in the moral of a story. So at the end he’d pause and lean over to say, “Now, Bob, I want you to remember this story whenever you feel overwhelmed, up to your neck in muck, so to speak. Just lean back, take a deep breath, and say to yourself, ‘Relax, no reason to worry . It’s only quicksand. I can float in it, and someone will come along to throw me a rope – maybe sooner if I holler.'”
And then he’d cock his finger and add, “Now if you see one of your friends thrashing around in the muck, so to speak, don’t you go jumpin’ in after ’em. Just remember – all you gotta do is throw ’em a rope. They can pull themselves out.”
Bob Daniel, Ph.D. is a retired clinical psychologist who has been practicing in Virginia Beach for over thirty years. He has worked in private practice with adults with mental health and substance abuse issues. While he has been accused of being an unabashed prevaricator, Dr. Daniel insists that his stories are 100% true, even if not factually accurate. Other such true tales include THE ESKIMO WHO LOST HIS ART AND SOUL and THE MAN WITH A MONKEY ON HIS BACK: A STORY OF THE STRUGGLE WITH SELF-BLAME. Still other tales in the “Stories and Fables” category are elaborations of older folk tales.
While many evangelicals have endorsed Donald Trump for president, their support likely undermines his chances for spiritual redemption. During the waning days of the 2024 presidential election, Trump reveals his true colors – that of a crass and spiteful lost soul. Addicted to power and adulation, this false prophet cloaks himself in the American flag and wields the Christian cross. MAGA followers profess blind allegiance, while foes ridicule and vilify him. In my opinion, his redemption can only come through repentance – and how often have you heard him express remorse?
A Recovery Program
As practiced in 12-step recovery programs, redemption involves a searching and fearless moral inventory, a humble confession of wrongdoings, a willingness to mend one’s ways, and a genuine attempt to make amends to the injured. Absent these steps, Trump cannot find true redemption. He apparently needs to hit rock bottom before even considering this journey. His continuing popularity among the MAGA crowd distracts him from this option. For him to achieve spiritual awakening, his presidential campaign must first fail. Then, his adoring fans, his political apologists and enablers, and his ridiculing critics all need to stand down. Only then might this prodigal son pursue redemption in earnest.
The Slim Prospects for Trump’s Redemption
As a retired psychologist who worked in substance abuse, I have come to respect and admire those who have taken such tortuous journeys. While Charles Colson apparently found redemption in prison for his Watergate involvement, I’m not that hopeful for Trump. We might just witness the proverbial camel squeezing through the eye of a needle before that happens. So, one final question for devout Christian Trump supporters before voting: Are you going to jeopardize his potential salvation by condoning his abusive behavior through voting for him?
Addressing Our Role
Whether or not Trump undertakes such a spiritual quest, the rest of us can begin the healing process. Authoritarian stances such as his do not occur in a vacuum; rather, they develop in relation to others. We can only do our parts not to feed into the toxic interactions that support his wayward wanderings. Here, my articles on vicious cycle patterns in relationships can help us to recognize these unhealthy patterns. And even if our efforts have no effect on Trump, they may help to overcome the polarization that divides us. Then, we might find compassion for one another, despite our differences.
The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer Cycle
Currently, Trump attains power by championing the cause of his loyal followers, whom he identifies as the victims of an oppressive regime. This mobilizes the classic Rescuer-Victim-Persecutor cycle, identified by Steven Karpman and addressed in my previous posts. This pattern is reinforced by yet another version, in which Trump proclaims his own victimhood at the hands of the Deep State, thus currying sympathy from his supporters. And finally, his promise of retribution for unfair treatment offers another version of the Persecutor role, that of the Vindicator. His alternation among these roles makes him a more elusive target for his critics and bolsters support among his followers. This description provides an admittedly dense summary of the relationship dynamics around Trump. Here, a review of my previous article, Vicious Cycles in Relationships 2.0, may provide a helpful background.
Looking Within to Break the Cycle
To break out of such vicious cycle patterns we must take an honest look at ourselves, rather than focusing on others. After all, we are the only ones over whom we have any direct control. For example, do we assume a judgmental attitude toward others, thus adopting the Critic role, a somewhat tamer version of the Persecutor? Instead, we might express our disapproval of Trump’s speech or actions, yet without attacking his character. We might also seek to understand his Followers, rather than dismissing their viewpoints out-of-hand. This is just one example of how we might modify our approach. While it may not break the cycle, it might just lessen the intensity of the polarization. Although too late to impact the course of the election, it may promote the needed healing in the aftermath.
Pilgrimages often reveal their most poignant insights during the journey, rather than at their destinations. The demanding physical ordeal of the trip itself poses a trial of perseverance. For cloistered monks, though, the quest offers additional challenges. The journey often exposes them to the temptations, distractions and aggravations from which the monasteries have shielded them. Unplanned and unanticipated events along the way test their commitment to their spiritual paths. In the process, the monks have the opportunity to renew and deepen their spirituality.
The Two Monks on a Pilgrimage
Such was the case with two monks who embarked upon this quest. Brother Kim was a novice, relatively new to the monastery. He looked upon Brother Lee as his mentor. In particular, he admired his elder’s equanimity in his deep spiritual practice within the sheltered confines of their monastery. Their pilgrimage was their first venture outside the monastery together, opening up opportunities for spiritual teaching. Little did they know just how this quest would test their fraternal bond.
The Course of the Pilgrimage
We withhold the pilgrimage’s route and destination so as to protect its sanctity for this order of monks. Recognize, though, that it is a strenuous journey, crossing two ridges and two valleys before arriving at the sacred grotto. As it turns out, each descent and river crossing embodied a particular trial. The preceding day’s torrential rains made the trails muddy and slippery. The rivers in the valleys had become swollen, making ferry crossings impossible and ford crossings treacherous. Still, with diligence and caution, our two monks could wade across. Others, particularly those of slight or frail build, found the crossings impossible – but we get ahead of ourselves here.
The First Crossing
After descending into the first valley, our two monks catch sight of the swift-flowing stream. There, on the riverbank, they catch sight of a fair young maiden, one of radiant beauty. She – the proverbial damsel in distress – sought their help in crossing the river. She explained that the swift current blocked her access to her ailing father across the valley. Without even thinking, Brother Lee lifted her up in his arms and proceeded to carry her across at the river ford. He noted to himself how her additional weight, however slight, lent greater stability to his footing. He felt his feet pressing into the muddy bottom, grounding him and helping him to resist the current.
Meanwhile, Brother Kim was quite unsettled by her beauty, leading him to avert his gaze from her. He was ever so aware of his vow of chastity, and he fought hard to honor it. Eventually, he managed to regain sufficient composure to allow him to navigate the swirling waters to the far bank. There, the maiden and the two monks parted ways, she into the valley, and they up the path to the next ridge.
The First Reckoning
The monks proceeded on their journey, climbing the next ridge and following it a ways. Brother Lee was rather nimble and light on his feet, while Brother Kim was downright klutzy. The young novice was constantly tripping over twigs, brushing against tree limbs, and getting snagged in vines. Soon, his aggravation was readily apparent to his mentor. Brother Lee inquired, “What’s wrong? Why are you so out of sorts? You weren’t like this at the start of our trip.”
After a deep sigh, the novice spewed forth, “How could you? We are supposed to be on a sacred quest, and you grab that beautiful girl and lift her to your bosom – I mean, chest.– Then caress her in your arms as you sway about in the churning torrent. What happened to your repudiation of the flesh, and your vow of purity? Does that mean nothing to you? And to think that I looked up to you and sought your guidance!”
When Brother Kim’s rant subsided, a tense silence followed. Then, Brother Lee casually noted, “My young brother, I left that young maiden back at the riverbank. You’ve been carrying her with you ever since.” Gradually, the silent pall lifted, and they continued on their way.
The Second Crossing
Before long, our two monks descended into the next valley. There, they soon approached its river, just as swollen as the previous one. As they neared the bank, a shriveled, contorted figure slumped before them. Here was likely the vilest, most ill-tempered curmudgeon that either of them had ever encountered. And that was before the wretch had even opened his mouth! His screechy voice conveyed utter contempt as he demanded immediate passage to the other side.
Whereas most would be taken aback by this demeanor, Brother Lee acted without hesitation. He heaved the wretch over his shoulder and proceeded into the swift stream. The monk immediately noticed that the riverbed consisted of slippery, loose rocks, requiring constant adjustments to stay upright. These maneuvers provoked the wretch’s barrage of complaints, curses, and insults, liberally punctuated by jabs and slaps. In his passage across the river, Brother Lee maintained an acute focus on maintaining his balance. He came to a startling realization – all these adjustments were actually helping to center him in his body! He even felt a hint of exhilaration, as a bronco-busting cowboy might experience.
Meanwhile, Brother Kim grew increasingly impatient with the abusive wretch. This frustration was no doubt built on the foundation of his earlier disappointment with his mentor. (Although he had come to understand and appreciate his mentor’s stance, his body still retained a substantial residual tension.) And while he was rather indignant on behalf of Brother Lee, he was also quite disappointed in him for tolerating that abuse.
The Second Reckoning
Upon reaching the far shore, the monks parted ways with the ill-tempered curmudgeon. They could hear his nagging complaints faded off into the distance as they headed down the trail to the grotto. The monks still had more ground to cover to reach the grotto by nightfall, so they hurried down their path. And as before, the mentor was fleet of foot and poised, while the novice was klutzy. This time, Brother Lee cut to the chase, “What’s the matter now, Brother Kim? You seem all out of sorts.”
After a deep sigh, Brother Kim let out a yelp. He then exclaimed, “This pilgrimage is not going at all as planned. I came looking for a deeper spirituality, and this is what we get – nagging complaints from that ingrate. He has totally ruined any possibility of spiritual transcendence that I was hoping to find. And as for you, how can you have any respect for yourself? You allowed that pathetic idiot to abuse you – both physically and verbally. Now, I’ve lost all respect for you.”
After a lengthy pause, Brother Lee responded, “My young brother, I left that poor wretch back at the riverbank, but you are still carrying that load with you. What a burden that must be for you, especially since you seem resigned to keeping it the entire journey.” After a while, he continued, “You know, you have a point about my tolerating abuse from that poor soul. I had not experienced such condemnation, I guess, since earlier today, when you denounced me for helping that young maiden. Now, that abusive wretch is no longer here with us, so it makes no sense to fret over him. But you are here with me. So how would you have me respond to your harsh judgment of me, both now and earlier in the day?”
The novice was stunned and speechless, and had no answer. Brother Lee allowed him his space, and the two completed their pilgrimage to the grotto in silence.
The Descent into the Grotto
Upon arrival, the two monks descended deep into the dark recesses of the grotto to complete their pilgrimage. There, they entered an extended silent retreat. Brother Lee, grounded and centered in his body from the stream crossings, sat in utter stillness with a quiet mind. Brother Kim, on the other hand, had some sorting out to do.
Danger: Proceed with Caution
The above parable, like The Monks’ Interesting, Not-So-Silent Retreat, is an adaptation and embellishment of a spiritual story in the Buddhist tradition. Minor variations of the original can be found by googling “fable monks taking maiden across the river” or similar phrases, so I assume that this story is in the public domain. You will also see that “The Second Crossing” in my story adds one or two new dimensions to the tale. Spelling them out is somewhat akin to explaining the punchline of a joke. Just as such an endeavor can spoil the humor, explanations can disrupt the story’s impact. So, if you share this concern, I advise you to skip the following commentary.
If you have resisted the urge to indulge in the following objective interpretation, I want to hear from you. How were you able to accomplish that? (Or are you just delaying it?)
Commentary on the Original Tale
The original tale follows the Buddhist tradition in dramatizing the spiritual path as a river crossing. It addresses the pitfall of fantasizing in desire for this pursuit, whether of deeper spirituality or simply serene mindfulness. This message is obviously relevant for monks and nuns with their vows of chastity and purity. Yet it is also relevant for those of us who have not disavowed our sensuality. Here, the challenge is to keep the sensuality embedded in a personal relationship, rather than expressed in unadulterated lust. This presents a more daunting challenge than faced by the monks. A secondary theme is the importance of honoring the vow’s spirit, not just the “letter of the law.” When we focus too much on the latter, we miss the forest for all the trees.
Commentary on my Embellished Version
This embellished version’s addition of a second river crossing expands upon how judgmentalism disrupts spirituality, or mindfulness. Such a constraint is implied in the “letter of the law” approach, as dramatized in the original version. My amended version notes how we can be intolerant of others’ shortcomings. Brother Kim was paradoxically hypercritical of the curmudgeon’s harsh treatment of Brother Lee. He also revealed his criticalness toward Brother Lee, both for presumed carnality and for tolerating abuse. Brother Lee modeled living in the moment by focusing on Brother Kim’s judgmentalism, as the curmudgeon was long gone. He further highlighted the challenge posed in responding to abuse, while modeling equanimity in the face of it.
I also snuck in a secondary theme, as well. This addresses the paradox that deeper spirituality often involves greater “embodiment.” Note how Brother Lee’s focus on his body experiences (both groundedness and balance), helped him maintain his poise. Thus, he could resist the distracting influences of sensuality, annoyance, and criticalness in his spiritual crossing.
If you decided to entertain the more objective perspective in this commentary, I welcome your feedback, as well.
We are all familiar with the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Variations of this guideline appear throughout various cultures and religious traditions. Most of us probably endorse it, whether we follow it or not. Yet this adage focuses only on how we treat others. How we treat ourselves, though, is also worthy of attention. We shall consider two variants which mirror and complement the standard Golden Rule. The first proclaims, “Do unto ourselves as we would do unto others.” The other version advises, “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Then, we will address the roles of experience and action –being compassionate and doing generous acts – in this endeavor. But first, we need to consider the focus and assumptions of these sayings.
Golden Rule Variants for Self-care
All three versions presented here address our treatment of ourselves and others. Of course, this advice would hardly be necessary if we all demonstrated abundant caring and generosity. Similarly, these sayings would be virtually meaningless if we already showed similar concern for all involved, ourselves included. However, by encouraging us to treat ourselves and others comparably, these adages all assume a disparity in caring. Whereas the Golden Rule encourages us to treat others better, our two variants urge better self-care. And while the standard adage relates to self-absorbed individuals, our two variants apply to those who habitually put others first.
Selfish and Selfless
Thus, the traditional Golden Rule and our two variants address two contrasting groups. Together, they represent polar opposites along a continuum ranging from selfish to selfless. Generally, we judge the former critically while praising the latter. Most of us recognize the shortcomings of being self-centered, with its tendency to alienate others. (I explore this orientation in more detail in my post, Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation.) In contrast, we tend to disregard the downside for the selfless givers, who consistently put others first.
Being Generous to a Fault
Unbridled generosity often has adverse consequences for the giver. When we are constantly giving, without replenishing our emotional supplies, we become depleted. Our recipients come to take us for granted, such that they show little appreciation. We might then become resentful, which only builds over time. That sabotages our spirit of generosity, which we have been cultivating through our self-sacrifice. (I address these drawbacks in my post, Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue.)
Fostering Entitlement
Our pervasive giving frequently has dire consequences for the receiver, as well. With the support of their benefactors never in question, the recipients often take it for granted. This feeds into their sense of privilege, which cultivates unrealistic expectations of others. As such, they feel more deserving, such that they disregard others’ wants and needs. In fact, the term “afluenza” has been coined and used to describe the unhealthy entitlement of teens spoiled by their doting parents.
“Killing with Kindness”
In some instances, excessive generosity can foster dependency, rather than or in addition to entitlement. This is especially true when givers offer services which their recipients can provide for themselves, though not without some effort. These donors further “enable” dependency by implicitly defining their recipients as incapable of fending for themselves. Particularly when coupled with critics’ harsh judgment, the enablers’ good intentions transform their recipients into victims of low expectations. While not literally killing their charges with kindness, they often deaden their spirit. (I delve into this topic further in my post, Escaping the Victim Role.)
Thus, the recipients’ feeling bad about needing help often mirrors the givers’ feeling good about providing the needing support. After all, who wants to be considered a charity case? Yet committed caretakers often overlook this connection, as their core identity is so tied into being helpful to others. Without it, they can feel disoriented and lost, without a sense of purpose.
Striking a Balance between Polar Opposites
The Golden Rule and our two variants all propose solutions to our self-care and concern for others being out-of-balance. Selfish people need to treat others better, while selfless ones need to take better care of themselves. When taken together, the Golden Rule and our two variants suggest a balance between these two extremes. This is but one instance in which choosing a middle path works out better than operating at either opposing pole. (In Muddling down a Middle Path, I note various other polarities for which this advice applies. These include freedom vs. order, security vs. adventure, and belonging vs. individuality.)
The Two Inverse Variants of the Golden Rule
With all the preceding concerns, it may seem like I’m saying that generosity is bad. That’s certainly not my intent. Rather, I am asserting that an excessive commitment to serving others can be bad for all involved. Furthermore, I am affirming the helpfulness of balancing generosity with a healthy dose of self-interest. Now, we can consider how our two inverse variants of the Golden Rule address this imbalance. While one version explores how we treat ourselves, the other focuses on how we encourage others to treat us.
“Do unto Ourselves as We Do unto Others”
Perhaps we best demonstrate the meaning of treating ourselves as we treat others when we don’t follow this guideline. What does it mean when we take better care of others than we do of ourselves? Are we not implying that others are more deserving than us? Or that they are needier? If so, others may take us up on this attitude by expecting our support while disregarding our needs. Or are we suggesting that our service makes us better than others? Then others may resent our condescending attitude and perhaps feel bad about receiving our support. Whichever message we send – whether of being undeserving, less needy, or morally superior – it undermines healthy relations.
By contrast, treating ourselves as we treat others puts us on more even footing with them. We attain our identity and self-worth from both our advocacy for ourselves and our generosity toward others. On the one hand, we proclaim our self-worth through our self-assertion. On the other hand, we feel good about ourselves when we give to others. This balanced approach does not lay claim to any special treatment or entitlement. Taken together, these two sources of self-esteem support our being “just as good as,” but not necessarily “better than.” Furthermore, these ways of establishing our self-worth are less likely to convey a “holier than thou” attitude. Thus, it puts us more on par with others.
“Allow Others to Do for Us as We Would Do for Them”
Our second variant of the Golden Rule focuses on letting others help us. “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Just as we feel good about ourselves for helping others, so can they feel good about themselves for helping us –yet only if we let them! Research studies have shown that generosity has a positive impact for the giver as well as for the receiver, and sometimes even more for the giver. So, do we really want to be selfish in hoarding those warm, fuzzy feelings for ourselves? Or are we willing to allow others those feel-good opportunities by accepting and appreciating their support?
Reluctance to Accepting Support
When such occasions arise, we may resist accepting support. We might be unwilling to giving up what we consider the moral high ground. (“’Tis nobler to give than to receive.”) Or we might balk at relinquishing the control of being in charge. Still yet, we might hesitate because receiving help implies that we are needy and therefore deficient. Whatever the cause, such staunch independence deprives others of the opportunity for feeling good about extending themselves.
Receiving Compliments
This hesitancy to receive support even extends to fielding compliments, which have very little cost for the giver. We have all witnessed occasions when someone receiving a compliment has minimized, qualified, or refuted it. Perhaps we can even recall instances when we have done so ourselves. While we might justify this response in the name of humility, we are also questioning our admirers’ judgment. Is that really how we want to reward someone’s graciousness? Just how hard would it be to show appreciation for their admiration?
Motivation Matters
Thus far, we’ve been focusing on the act of giving. We should recognize, though, that the intentions behind the support matter. We might offer support in response to social pressure, or to boost our reputation. Or we might give out of a sense of obligation. Recipients are less likely to respond favorably to these intentions than to giving out of caring. They might well feel beholding or obligated to us in return. Or they might even resent being used to bolster our status. Still yet, they may feel inadequate for needing help. In contrast, giving out of caring is more likely to engender gratitude. Motivation matters. Thus, effective charity involves being as well as doing–being compassionate while doing the giving. We might even propose yet another variant of the Golden Rule: “Be for others as we would be for ourselves.”
The Golden Rule Applied to Conflict
Thus far, discussion of the Golden Rule and its variants has focused on support, whether for others or for ourselves. But what if we are in conflict with others? We might well find ourselves disapproving of others, rather than accepting. Does the Golden Rule apply here? Well, it does state “do unto” others, not “do for” them. We’re probably not feeling so charitable in such cases – nor should we be. Offering acceptance or support implies condoning, if not actually enabling, those actions of which we disapprove. So how does the Golden Rule – and our variants of it, for that matter – apply in those cases?
Exercising Accountability
We all have the right to challenge others’ actions that affect us — as they do with us. For exercising accountability, a qualified version of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” appears in order. Our reservation centers on the blame involved in our labeling an action a “sin” and the doer a “sinner.” We should recognize that it is not our place to pass judgment. We can reduce this judgmentalism by regarding the offending action as a transgression against ourselves or others, rather than as a moral defect.
A general rule of thumb is to demand accountability for actions, rather than passing judgment on the person. Here, the distinction between doing and being comes into play. We challenge the doing of the action, while still showing respect for who the person is. Indeed, failure to call out the transgression conveys our low expectations for the transgressor. That hardly expresses respect. Thus, holding others accountable appears quite compatible with the standard Golden Rule – provided that we welcome constructive input ourselves. We address our readiness to receive challenging feedback in an upcoming section, “Being Called Out by Others.”
One particular insight helps us to cope with others’ transgressions against us. It is the realization that each transgression gives us the opportunity to advocate for ourselves, thus affirming our self-worth. Without such conflicts, we would have little need to take such action.
Calling Out Ourselves
Exercising accountability for ourselves involves taking stock of ourselves. This can be particularly problematic for those of us who are our own worst critics. My story of The Man with a Monkey on his Back dramatizes such struggles. And indeed, a “searching and fearless moral inventory” is often the most challenging of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.) Here, the distinction between being and doing applies. Focusing on the kind of person we see ourselves being likely evokes shame. This feeling often immobilizes us, thus interfering with our efforts to change what we do.
Holding Ourselves Accountable for our Actions
Identifying how our “doings” transgress against others, or even against ourselves, however, likely causes guilt. This feeling calls our attention to our actions, which we can work at changing. Changing what we do is generally easier than changing who we are. With sufficient work at changing our behaviors, we might notice ourselves developing positive traits. And when we acquire enough healthy traits, we develop our character, or who we are. While this might be a “fake it till you make it” approach, it usually works better than an attempt at a “total makeover.” We might identify this variant of the Golden Rule as, “Hold ourselves accountable, as we would do with others.”
Being Called Out by Others
It would be great if we were able to recognize our transgressions toward others consistently. Unfortunately, that is often not the case, as we all have our “blind spots.” As a result, others often recognize our shortcomings before we do.” When they point these flaws out to us (or to others in our presence), we often experience shame and humiliation. This one-two punch usually involves our feeling judged, even if others are attempting constructive feedback. If this be the case, another variant of the Golden Rule applies: “Allow others to call us out, as we would want to call them out.”
Receiving Constructive Feedback
In accepting criticism from others, we recognize that they can help us with our personal growth – even if that’s not their intent. We also appreciate that our adversaries might more readily point out our shortcomings than would our friends. Furthermore, they are more likely to offer perspectives different than our own. Thus, we can often learn more about ourselves from our adversaries than from our allies. Again, this applies only if we listen! Of course, we may need to filter out their toxic judgment or blame to hear their constructive feedback.
Constructive Feedback, or Judgment and Blame?
How can we best respond to feedback, whether constructive or judgmental? I would suggest that we respond to each in the same way – with due consideration and gratitude. For input intended as helpful, this would obviously be an appropriate response. But what about for accusatory feedback? Yes, the same approach for that, as well. For one thing, we can learn valuable lessons, even if we don’t particularly care for how they are packaged. Furthermore, our adversaries would likely be unprepared for such a receptive response, thus catching them off-guard. Additionally, our not following their script for an “us versus them” confrontation can knock them off-balance. This often flushes out their agenda to shame and humiliate us. Thus, this strategy can prove effective for exposing and deflecting their verbal sneak attacks.
This approach warrants caution and skill, though. If we are too deferential, our adversaries might attempt to dominate us, particularly if there is an audience. In exercising due consideration, we can inquire into the assumptions behind their criticism. First, this exploration can help us to understand their outlook, such that we adapt valid aspects to our purposes. Second, this inquiry serves as a strategy for challenging their perspectives. Our questioning might just reveal some unwarranted assumptions or logical inconsistencies which they had not considered. And third, we can command respect through our discerning inquiry and poise. Even if they deny us their respect, they cannot take away our self-respect – that is, unless we let them.
Summary and Recommendations
Hopefully, our exploration of the Golden Rule and our proposed variants of it has expanded and deepened our understanding of fair treatment. In particular, we have noted how these concerns apply both to others and to ourselves. This is best achieved when our self-interest and our concern for others are fairly comparable. This balance both validates our self-worth and strengthens our emotional bonds with one another. Furthermore, the support works best when involving both experience and action – being compassionate and doing good works. This is equally true and relevant for our treatment of others and ourselves. When we alternate between the roles of giving and receiving, these guidelines help to foster greater understanding and cooperation.
I should note that I am not advocating a limit to the amount of compassion and generosity. Generally, more is better. In practice, though, judgmentalism is often the limiting factor: more judgment generally means less compassion. Instead, I am espousing that caring and giving be fairly evenly distributed between ourselves and others. When others claim more than their fair share, we should be ready to call them out. And by the same token, we should accept others calling us out. In this way, we can maintain our balance of self-interest and care for others. And when we all practice this balancing act and alternate between giving and receiving, we transcend independence and dependence. Instead, we foster healthy interdependence, and that works best for all.
You may have great techniques for relieving stress, but how are your strategies for handling the stressors causing the stress? Using meditation, yoga, exercise, venting, or just plain relaxation to relieve stress is all fine and good. Even so, you’ll likely continue to encounter stressors throughout your daily activities and social interactions. And just where does that relief get you, if you continue accumulating stress? You may feel that your life is a revolving door, facing the same challenges day after day. Or worse yet, you may feel like a hamster on a treadmill, unable to keep up with your accelerating pace. If so, it only makes sense to develop and practice effective strategies for managing your recurring stressors.
First, a Matter of Perspective
Before focusing on the different types of stressors, it is helpful to recognize a factor common to all stressors. That is, the actual situation doesn’t determine the intensity of our stress, as much as our perception and interpretation of it does. In other words, we can make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s simply a matter of perspective. While this insight is a cornerstone of the cognitive behaviorism school of psychology, it is no new revelation. Epictetus shared this wisdom with his contemporaries back in the days of the Roman Empire.
For most of you readers, this article serves as a reminder for what you already know. You may simply have found yourself swallowed up in the mire of a particular crisis. Here, a simple story, such as my Uncle Lester’s The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats, can help regain perspective. Or various sayings might help. Do we see the glass as being half-full or half-empty? Can we see the silver lining of the dark cloud? Such analogies and metaphors can help us regain our firm footing when we find ourselves on shaky ground. Now, we can consider the various strategies and techniques for handling the different types of stressors.
Different Types of Stressors
If you are like most, your stress comes from a variety of sources. It’s unrealistic to expect the same strategies to work well in all situations. Thus, it can be helpful to identify guidelines for handling some common types of stressors. That is just what this article proposes to do. For this task, I have compiled a list of four types of stressors, each of which suggest different approaches. These include Workload, Problems, Conflicts, and Losses.
Workload
Workload consists of our various chores, tasks, and demands. These stressors serve our needs and wants and our various obligations and responsibilities to others. They often involve satisfying direct or implied contracts (e.g., work for a paycheck, sharing household responsibilities, obeying laws). Here the work is pretty straightforward – we know the routine, and the main stress is the sheer amount.
Problems
Problems are aspects of our workload which are not so straightforward. These stressors involve certain complications that must be resolved to meet our needs or to satisfy our obligations. Sometimes the solution to problems is simply a matter of acquiring the needed knowledge and skills. At other times, it involves developing a game plan of strategies and tactics for applying this knowledge and skill.
Conflict
The stressor of Conflict is a particular type of problem, one with opposing and mutually exclusive objectives. In other words, you can’t have it all. We can further break down conflict into two types, internal and interpersonal.
Internal Conflicts
Internal conflicts are those between our own needs and wants. These often involve pairs of opposing values, such as security vs. freedom, order vs. spontaneity, and individuality vs. belonging. We might consider them as paradoxical dualities, as they do not lend themselves to clear-cut, rational solutions. In other words, logic will not determine which value should prevail. Rather, the resolution of these stressors typically requires a balancing or trade-off between the opposing values.
Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflicts involve a clash between our needs and wants and those of others. Even in the best of relationships, we will differ with our partners in terms of our goals and expectations.
Loss
The stressor of Loss involves our no longer have access to the people, things or events that are important to us. Such losses may be permanent and irreversible, as in the cases of death, destruction and severe injury. Or they may be only temporary, though still posing significant difficulties for us. We may lose actual people or tangible possessions, or our loss may be more abstract. Our self-esteem and reputation are examples of such abstract losses.
The Perspective of This Approach
The forthcoming guidelines are not particularly profound – “they’re not rocket science.” Rather, they offer practical reminders for when we get “so mad (or sad, anxious, etc.) that we can’t see straight.” Although presented from my own particular perspective, they are not original. I call upon the Serenity Prayer to sort out the types of stressors in terms of change and acceptance:
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Within this framework, workload consists of those stressors that we can resolve (with sufficient courage and commitment). Losses are those that we cannot change, but must accept (hopefully with some serenity). Problems are those that we are not yet sure whether or how we can work them out (thus, requiring wisdom). Conflicts are those stressors that typically involve some trade-off or balance between change and acceptance. Each type poses particular demands and requires particular strategies, skills and attitudes to resolve the stressors.
The Stressor of Workload
Issue:
The sheer amount of work, responsibilities, tasks, and demands
Challenge:
To complete the various tasks and responsibilities in a satisfactory and timely manner
Strategies & Techniques:
Organize – make a list, breaking the task down into manageable parts
Prioritize – decide which tasks are essential and urgent, and which are less important
Plan which tasks to tackle first, which to save for latter, and which to drop altogether
Establish a reasonable schedule you can stick to
Start work, one task at a time
Pace yourself
Delegate responsibilities, contract out to others
Check the items off your list as you complete them, to monitor your progress
Give yourself intermittent rewards after completing the different steps or stages – not before!
Pitfalls:
Feeling overwhelmed, perhaps even unfairly victimized
Self-criticism and blaming
Procrastination and avoidance – breaks become unconditional surrender, rather than strategic retreats
Demands and tasks accumulate, making the workload feel all the more oppressive
Coping skills atrophy, or weaken, through non-use (“If you don’t use it, you lose it.”)
The Stressor of Problems
Issue:
The Workload is not simple and straightforward. Rather, it requires developing a new approach or modifying an existing one in order to get the task done.
Challenge:
To find a solution to the problem(s) thwarting completion of the task
Strategies & Techniques:
Take time to develop your own knowledge and understanding of the problem – to find an answer you must first understand the question.
Remember that working hard is a good strategy for workload, but working smart is generally better for problems
Step back and take a break to get a fresh perspective, especially if you “can’t see the forest for the trees.” (Make sure this is only a strategic retreat, not an unconditional surrender.)
Seek out others’ expertise and guidance, perhaps even hiring a consultant
Brainstorm: If “two heads are better than one,” just think what several can do.
Pitfalls:
Tunnel vision – not questioning your own perspective – one definition of insanity is “taking the same approach and expecting different results”; finding a solution often requires looking at the problem in a different way (i.e., “thinking outside the box”)
Working harder, rather than working smarter, thus “spinning your wheels”
Negativity – adopting a negative outlook discourages a positive solution – “self-fulfilling prophecy” – rather, look at the problem as an opportunity to discover & practice new understanding and skills
Complaining about how the problem shouldn’t be, rather than accepting it as reality and dealing with it
Procrastination and neglect, which often allows it to get worse – in contrast to “a stitch in time saves nine.”
Avoidance of problems interferes with developing positive problem-solving skills.
The Stressor of Conflict
As we have addressed above, conflict can be either internal or interpersonal. Actually, this stressor typically involves both dimensions. This is chiefly related to the tension between being an individual and belonging to a group. It is here that our concern for our own individual well-being and our caring for others collide. Only if we were totally selfish or totally selfless would we escape this internal tension.
Interpersonal Conflict
Issue:
A disagreement with someone prevents you from getting what you want, poses a hardship, keeps you from completing your work effectively, or disrupts your relationship
Challenge:
To resolve the conflict and restore harmony. This is part of a broader, ongoing challenge: that of striking a balance between looking out for your own self-interests and demonstrating your commitment to the relationship and caring for the other. The only time that you really proclaim you own sense of individual self-worth is when you take a stand in opposition to someone else. And the only time that you really demonstrate your caring for the other is when you sacrifice your own self-interests for their benefit. Through the ongoing series of conflicts, large and small, we are perpetually fine-tuning the balance between individuality and relatedness.
Strategies & Techniques:
Two fundamental prerequisites for resolving conflict are safety and respect: without safety, any resolution is achieved under duress, and resolution without respect is often a hollow victory.
Be flexible in your styles of dealing with conflict. You wouldn’t construct a piece of furniture with just one type of tool. When various styles are used in balance and moderation, they typically are adaptive. Excessive use of any one style may be counterproductive.
Common styles of dealing with conflict are Avoidance, Confrontation, Accommodation, Cooperation, and Collaboration. (These styles are discussed in more detail elsewhere.)
Conflict resolution involves three basic components: self-expression, active listening, and negotiation.
Listening
Usually both sides need to have their feelings heard before they are ready to consider possible solutions.
Keep an open mind: just as your point-of-view make perfect sense to you, so, too, do your adversaries’ perspectives make sense to them. It is unrealistic to expect that a conflict will be worked out only from your perspective. Afterall, no one’s going to let you have the home field advantage all the time. Besides, discovering another perspective expands your horizons.
If you want your partners and adversaries to consider your perspectives, you’d better demonstrate your willingness to listen to theirs. It’s not enough to comprehend their point-of-view. You must demonstrate your understanding of it to them. It’s even better if you can show that by “reading between the lines” – that is, if you don’t do it in a critical, defensive, or controlling manner.
Listen to your partner before expressing your point of view. That way, you’ll have more of their undivided attention.
Expression
Your partner or opponent is not a mind-reader: the more clearly you can state your position and its rationale, the better your chance for a fair settlement. Define the problem from your viewpoint, describe how it is affecting you, state your expectations, and perhaps indicate the incentives for your partner agreeing to your proposal.
Incentives probably work best if they are concessions you are willing to make or are natural consequences of the agreement. Otherwise, they may convey a sense of manipulation, bribery, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Expanding the discussion to include other complaints to justify your position tends to make the negotiations complicated and contentious. While it can be helpful to put your position in a broader context to enhance mutual understanding, it is often better to address one issue, or just a few related issues, at a time.
Negotiation
Negotiation needs to take both perspectives into account. While compromise often involves a “50-50″ solution, in which both sides get some of what they want, collaboration can strive for more of a “win-win” situation, in which both sides can get more than half. This involves the additional use of problem-solving techniques, discussed in the previous section.
Incentives probably work best if they are concessions you are willing to make or are natural consequences of the agreement. Otherwise, they may convey a sense of manipulation, bribery, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Know the rules of the game: if your adversary is playing his or her hand with the cards close to the vest, and you are laying your cards on the table, you are not going to win your fair share of poker hands.
Pitfalls:
Blame and focusing on whose fault a problem is accomplishes little more than creating animosity. It’s often not necessary to know how a problem got that way in order to fix it.
Complaining may be a safer form of communication than expressing one’s feelings, but it tends to foster defensiveness and counterattacks.
Trying to find a solution before your partner expresses their feelings may convey an attitude that you don’t care about them.
Insisting on getting your way all the time puts off the other person, reducing the chances of a resolution, or making the settlement a hollow victory.
Accommodating or giving in to others regularly usually leads to them taking you for granted and to your feeling resentful.
Avoidance of conflict may involve losing by default – giving in rather than addressing the differences.
Avoidance of conflict prevents you from developing the skills needed to negotiate a favorable settlement for yourself. This tends to give others an advantage in future conflicts.
Internal Conflict
Issue:
Life frequently involves internal conflicts, in which something must be given up. Often these conflicts are unavoidable, as they involve an inherent paradox of life, generally requiring some trade-off. Security vs. freedom, order vs. spontaneity, and individuality vs. belonging are examples of such paradoxes.
Challenge:
To reconcile opposing needs, feelings, urges, values, and interests in ourselves, in order to achieve an integrated self, that balances and reconciles opposing values and perspectives.
Strategies & Techniques:
Values clarification: identifying the various implicit values on each side of a conflict situation.
Recognizing conflicts as opportunities to clarify and articulate our basic values, thus helping us to know ourselves better.
Identifying the pro’s and con’s on each side of a conflict situation, weighing the likely and possible consequences of a particular resolution to a conflict.
Recognizing that a healthy resolution of a conflict often involves a trade-off between competing sides, rather than having an either-or or all-or-none resolution.
Realizing that something must be given up in the trade-off, and perhaps going through a grieving process.
Pitfalls:
It is often tempting to “project” one side of an internal conflict onto someone else, so that it is experienced as an interpersonal conflict, rather than an internal one. For example, baiting others into condemning one’s drug abuse might distract attention from one’s own shame over using.
“Projecting” one side of a conflict onto others allows ones to pursue one side of the conflict, perhaps as an act of rebellion against their censure.
The Stressor of Loss
Issue:
Something or someone that has been an important part of your life is no longer available,
Challenge:
To accept a loss, to honor the positive in what you’ve lost and to forgive the negative, to let go and move on with your life. The loss may be something tangible (e.g., death of a parent or sibling, divorce, job loss, disability from chronic illness) or something more abstract (e.g., self-esteem, reputation, respect, honor, trust, sense of identity). Whichever it is, we are called upon to give up something that can’t be entirely fixed or replaced. Or we may simply come to a realization of the natural limitations and paradoxes of life (e.g., not being able to “have our cake and eat it, too”).
Strategies & Techniques:
Expressing sadness and grief over the loss, rather than simply complaining
Recognizing the difference between grief and self-pity
Utilizing social support, allowing others to bear witness to our mourning
Dealing with the loss emotionally, not just intellectually
Working through the various phases of the grief process (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance), rather than distracting yourself from this work
Letting go, both of the longing to regain the lost person or thing, and of any anger and resentment over the loss
Honoring what you’ve gotten out of what you have lost. This work at incorporating the positive qualities into your own life serves as a remembrance for what or whom you have lost.
Establishing a balance between healing the wound of the loss and moving forward in your life. Over time, the balance should be gradually shifting toward the latter.
Pitfalls:
Getting stuck in longing for the past, or in bearing a grudge or resentment over what was taken away from you, rather than letting go of the lost person, thing, or quality
Confusion between complaining and grieving. Complaining involves holding onto ones grievances, rather than letting go.
Confusing sadness with weakness. Ironically, we best regain our strength and resiliency by giving into our sadness and working through the grief process.
Toughing it out, not wanting to let anyone see you sweat, especially sweating tears
Numbing oneself to avoid the pain of the loss, thus staying stuck in unresolved grief
Wariness over establishing a similar involvement in the future, to avoid a similar pain and loss
Summary
The above discussion utilizes the Serenity Prayer in sorting out four types of stressors and recommending strategies for each. Many of these tips are common sense and likely already familiar. Thus, these lists serve as useful reminders of helpful outlooks and skills in the midst of stress.
Additional Resources
In calmer times, more extensive exploration of this topic can strengthen these perspectives. Thus, the strategies and techniques can be more readily available when called for. Such further discussions are offered in other posts on this website. Baring Your Soul, Bearing Your Stress goes into more detail with the Serenity Prayer to explore the use of expression and emotional support in coping with stress.
We often get trapped into viewing our stressors as obstacles that interfere with our lives. This typically leads to avoidance and its associated negative feelings, such as dread, resentment, and shame. Another option is to view stressors as providing opportunities to grow. Here, we can expand our perspective, develop our skills, and affirm our place in the world. Embrace the adventure!
I awoke about 3 am this morning, just as a nightmare was coming to a resolution. I’d just dreamt that I and a crew of renegades were making our escape from an oppressive authoritarian regime that had overtaken our country. And when we were on the cusp of achieving freedom, some glitch occurred, such that we were being found out. That’s when I awoke from this nightmare.
Fantasies of Chaos in America
It didn’t take much insight to realize that my nightmare was my personal reaction to our national crisis. Just this Tuesday I watched the Presidential Debacle, in which President Trump highjacked the debate. I had fantasies of the follow-up to the election November 3. In one scenario, Republican state legislators overrode the election results, backing Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. They declared the vote null and void and sent their slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. In another version, I envisioned a defeated Trump activating his vigilante stormtrumpers, whom he had on stand-by. He justified and supported this move by declaring martial law, blaming antifa and Black Lives Matter for the unrest.
I make no claim regarding the plausibility for either of these nightmarish scenarios. I’m simply reporting on how our current political specter has haunted me, even in my sleep. I fell into a black hole fueled by fear, distrust and anger. And the pull of this nightmare continued in the above fantasies after I awoke. This susceptibility gave me some appreciation for how Trumpsters could fall prey to QAnon conspiracy theories.
Subduing the Nightmare
I was all keyed up from my nightmare, and I realized that sleep would not easily return. So I got up and read from Steven Mitchell’s translation and interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. I realized that I could open it up to almost any page and experience some solace. It did not disappoint. I felt centered. My mind quieted. And I felt sad. Sad for the toll our current socio-political climate is taking on me – and on my brothers and sisters across this country. I mention the Tao Te Ching not to plug it, though it contains some profound truths. Rather, I seek to encourage others to turn to their sources of inspiration and solace.
Mourning in America
And I wept. Lest some Trumpsters interpret this as a sign of weakness, these are not tears of a victim feeling sorry for himself. Nor of a bleeding heart pitying poor, helpless victims. These are tears of grief. I was mourning for the emotional poverty this country has been experiencing as it prays at the altar of property, power, prestige, and privilege. And out of this grief comes not resignation, but resolve. Resolve to confront these false gods and to recover our lost humanity.
A Prelude to the Nightmare of Trump‘s America
This fall from grace did not start with Trump. We had plenty of warning signs along the way. There was Robin Leach’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. More recently, we have the Kardashians and The Real Housewive’s of LA, NY, DC, or wherever. Perhaps our idolatry of material success and fame provides some distraction from our nightmare of unspoken discontents. We seem to have lost our moral compass. We reveal the values we practice through the icons, memes, and idols that we follow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. All this continues while our wealth disparity widens, the pandemic spreads, and our climate heats up. These crises are brought to us courtesy of our sponsors – dark money from superPacs, special interests lobbies, lax oversight for business practices, and tax breaks for the wealthy.
Trump – Type-Cast for the Role of Demagogue
Trump has been but a mere symptom of this cultural decline. His niece has portrayed a profile of emotional poverty in his upbringing. Perhaps as an antidote, he has bought into the religion of the 4 P’s (i.e., property, power, prestige, and privilege). And as a result, he has been a lightning rod for the current cultural tensions. Perhaps his impending defeat, financial downturn, and the risk of criminal prosecution have led to his escalating desperation. In any event, he has played his character to the hilt in this reality TV melodrama.
Any Chance for Redemption?
I offer such speculation not to excuse his abusive behavior, but to understand it. I could muster up some compassion for him, as he appears to be pretty miserable. However, his willingness to inflict harm on others for his ego needs discourages me from doing so. He first needs to repent, before he can find true redemption. He likely needs to undergo the humiliation of defeat before he can develop the humility to beg forgiveness. Then there’s the matter of making amends. And just how likely is that?
A Silver Lining
Just one note of gratitude. I am thankful that Trump’s flaws are becoming increasingly apparent, such that most of us can now recognize them. Hopefully, this will pull us back from the brink of despotism. In contrast, a more polished demagogue would have posed an even greater risk. Perhaps this episode can enlighten future generations of such threats to our democracy.
A Call to Arms (Figuratively Speaking)
Thank you for indulging my rant, as it has been cathartic. Hopefully, it strikes a chord with some of you, so that you might feel somewhat less isolated in this toxic climate. And maybe it’ll prompt you to take some action – like voting! And volunteering for and contributing to campaigns supporting our ideals of democracy would be even better. Still better, you might share this post with others who may be on the fence. Note that I plan to exercise my resolve by completing my post, entitled Bridging the Great Political Divide. This work will be a follow-up to my last post, Understanding Political Polarization. Meanwhile, I’m going to catch some shut-eye – hopefully, without any further nightmares .
(Author’s note: I wrote this post prior to the news of the Trumps’ positive tests for COVID-19. I extend my wishes for their complete recovery.)
Political polarization has been on the rise over the past few decades. This division has only intensified during Trump’s presidency. In today’s climate, the discussion of our political differences appears nearly impossible. This post will explore how the interplay of beliefs and values shapes our political positions. We will see how our quest for certainty can result in adopting polarized positions. Yet normal conflicts between values undermine our confidence in taking such absolute stances on issues. “True believers” resolve this dilemma by compartmentalizing their conflicting values. Additionally, they seek refuge externally, embracing dogma, cult, and authoritarian leader for their longed-for reassurance. This post will expand upon this rather compact summary for a more complete understanding of polarization.
Our Quest for Meaning and Security
First, our political principles do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are part of an overall outlook on life that also encompasses culture, society, spirituality, recreation, and occupation. Our various beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and values generally hang together in at least a somewhat coherent fashion. This system helps us make sense of the world around us, anticipate relevant events, and plan accordingly. We rely on it not only to find meaning and purpose, but also to achieve a sense of security.
Beliefs and Values
Here, it is helpful to distinguish between beliefs and values. Our beliefs concern how we see things being, whereas our values are about how we see things should be. Our political positions concern the discrepancy between what is and what should or could be. If the current situation is consistent with our values, we support the status quo. This conservative stance by no means implies complacency – we can be quite vigilant in preserving the current order. And when the present doesn’t measure up to our ideals, we promote change. This can be progressive, in trying something new, or regressive, in going back to the old ways. Through this process, our systems of values and beliefs shape our various political opinions, attitudes, and policies.
Diversity Breeds Insecurity
With the diversity of beliefs and values, how can we be confident in our own? And with severe polarization, we disagree sharply in both our values and our beliefs. This makes for considerable conflict and confusion, thus threatening our sense of security. In the face of this situation, we long for certainty.
Logic and Our Search for Clear-cut Answers
Threats to our security are not just external – they can be internal, as well. Our outlook on life bolsters our sense of security by providing a consistent, straightforward guide for making choices. We generally like clear-cut, logical answers – true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. Logical analysis is custom-designed to deliver the goods, in either-or terms. And when we can all agree on the basic assumptions in a logical argument, we can usually agree on the conclusions. Such are the ingredients of an orderly, productive society.
The Initial Assumptions – Therein Lies the Rub
The main challenge to our societal ideals lies outside the realm of logic – actually, prior to it. Logic does not create something out of nothing. In order to use deductive reasoning, we require some initial statements to apply it to. These premises are basic beliefs which we presume to be true. With no logical proof of their validity, we believe them because they make sense to us and others whose opinions we respect. With polarization, we often disagree on the basic premises underpinning our arguments on a particular policy. Usually these assumptions go unstated, resulting in a stalemate in discussions.
Agreeing on the Facts
Another problem is agreeing on the facts. We’d all like to think that we share the same knowledge base in debating our positions on issues. After all, facts are facts, right? Yet political developments highlight this challenge. For example, Kelly Ann Conway proposed “alternative facts” in justifying the claim that President Trump had record attendance at his inauguration. While hardly an expert in epistemology (i.e., the philosophical study of how we know things), she backed this position by questioning how we can know anything with certainty. More recently, the distinction between anecdotal and scientific knowledge has emerged in the battle against COVID-19. All this highlights the need for consensus regarding “rules of evidence” for determining fact. (I plan to take this up in an upcoming post, with the working title of “Knowledge: Anecdote, Analogy, and Logic”.)
How Logic Speaks to Values – Or Not
Values present an even more daunting challenge to a sense of security that rests on a foundation of certainty. In the world of philosophy, the logical empiricists are rather dismissive of values, or ideals. Purists consider them to be non-sensory phenomena (or nonsense, for short?), and thus unworthy of logical inquiry. (Scott Adams has delivered a rather pithy commentary of their bias in Dilbert.) By embracing the value of objectivity, they appear quite willing to relegate the topic of values to the more subjective ethicists. The resulting separate study of beliefs and values complicates our efforts to understand their interplay in creating polarized political positions. Still, we must proceed.
Values in Conflict – Incidental and Paradoxical
All this goes to say that values do not lend themselves well to logical analysis. While deductive reasoning offers “either-or” conclusions in establishing facts, “both-and” resolutions appear more appropriate to values. This situation is particularly relevant when values are in conflict – as they frequently are. These conflicts may be incidental, arising randomly in specific situations. Yet, quite often certain values are inherently opposed to one another. These include order vs. spontaneity, individual freedom vs. the common good, adventure/risk vs. security, living for today vs. planning for tomorrow, and being-for-self vs. being-for-others. Such polarities in values serve as the basis for much polarization. You can probably recognize how various political controversies involve one or more of these dualities.
The Issue of Paradox
If logic doesn’t solve the problem of conflicting values, where do we turn? Another option is to view our conflicts between values not as problems to be solved, but as paradoxes to be accepted. Here, I might quote from my doctoral dissertation over years ago:
Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.
Robert Daniel, Ph.D., 1986
An Example of a Paradoxical Duality of Values
A common saying offers some insight into the dilemma posed by one such paradoxical duality: “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” This simple statement embodies the tension between enjoying life in the moment and planning for the future. There is one significant flaw with this assertion, in that it considers only a binary choice, with either-or options. It overlooks a middle ground: “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, save the rest for later.” While flawed, the original saying conveys the opposite extremes that characterize polarization. Furthermore, the altered version suggests a “both-and” resolution involving a trade-off between the two ideals.
Political Implications of This Paradox
In politics, this issue plays out in the decision to get immediate relief from deferring payroll taxes or to continue full funding of Social Security for our futures. It also applies to the threat that the extraction of natural resources poses to future pollution of our environment. Our next generation will judge us by how we leave the earth, their inheritance. To listen to Greta Thunberg, we’ve already been indicted (and rightly so, I might add).
Yet another example of polarization comes straight from the political sphere. Here, former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater famously stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Ultimate liberty means having no limits, and thus no rules or order. Without restraints, those in power are free to do as they please. As Lord Acton noted in the 19th Century, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus, the powerful get their way, creating injustice for others. Goldwater was able to compartmentalize freedom and justice so as not to recognize this inherent conflict. And many other politicians are doing the same with the various paradoxical dilemmas that underlay our political polarization.
Paradox: Where Logic Falls Short
As I suggested through my two examples, polarization arises out of our tendency to view dualities in either-or terms. Deductive logic emphasizes such binary solutions to our problems. This, along with the inductive reasoning of the scientific method, has promoted major technological advances. Yet logic falls short when it comes to paradox, which by definition defies logical solution. We cannot totally have it our way for both savoring the moment and building a nest egg for tomorrow. Nor can we have absolute freedom and total justice in our society. Of course, this also challenges Madison Avenue’s sales pitch that “you can have it all.” So, where does that leave us?
Paradox: A Challenge to Certainty
Our alternative resolution to paradoxes is acceptance. This involves recognizing that we cannot totally attain both ends of polar dualities. Rather than the polarized choice between the two extremes, we can resign ourselves to a trade-off between the two. We can opt for some of both, but not all of either. But just where do we draw the line? Well, this is where ambiguity sets in. As much as we might want definitive answers, these choices are generally a matter of personal preference. (More on this later.) While that might relieve us of the burden of proving ourselves right, it leaves us on shaky ground with our sense of security. No straightforward, clear-cut answers here – only a debate on the relative merits of a proposed policy.
Finding Balance between the Paradoxical Values
I have proposed one basic guideline in my previous post, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. Actually, the title aptly summarizes my message, which draws on the Buddhist principle of the Middle Path. The general rule of thumb is that the middle ground works out better than polarized extremes of the spectrum. Simple, no? Well, there is one slight complication: there can be a wide range of healthy, adaptive positions in the middle. This leaves plenty of room for honest differences of opinion.
Balancing Logic and Paradox
Earlier, I expressed regret for how the separate studies of logic and ethics complicate our understanding of political opinions. Instead, I suggest that logical determination of facts and tolerance for conflicting values ideally complement one other to achieve informed political opinions. This integration utilizes both objective and subjective perspectives for a deeper appreciation of our political differences. In doing so, this model views science and the humanities as complementary, rather than opposing forces.
In Praise of Ambiguity and Uncertainty
Political dialogue based upon the above principles support greater tolerance for our differences and less judgmentalism of one other. Thus, we can have honest disagreements without each declaring ourselves right and others wrong. We can broaden our perspective by considering ideas and values other than our own. We can stand in awe of this complex and diverse world, especially since we can’t entirely comprehend it in logical terms. So, why not embrace life’s ambiguities? Indeed, Alan Watts recommends this in The Wisdom of Insecurity, a spiritual book that transcends particular religious traditions. So, what’s not to love?
The Threat to our Sense of Security
There’s just one catch, though. Remember how we addressed our desire for certainty to insure our sense of security, especially in contentious times? Well, conflicting values challenge our having straightforward, clear-cut answers. Do you recall that game of Jenga, involving removal of building blocks from a tower? We can remove only so many select blocks before the structure topples. Well, that illustrates the fears that some have about giving up their right vs. wrong, black-and-white thinking. It is indeed ironic that seeking this internal certainty fosters the polarization that is so divisive to society.While we may seek certainty to reassure our sense of security, the resulting polarization ultimately threatens our actual security.
The True Believer
Seeking certainty for a sense of identity and security is by no means a new concept. In The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), Eric Hoffer coined the term, “true believer.” Since his profile of this phenomenon remains valid, I will borrow his term in discussing seekers of certainty.
The Illusion of Absolute Certainty
This illusion of certainty and security is not achieved without some serious mental gymnastics. True believers commonly deny, rationalize, distort, and suppress evidence contrary to their polarized positions. Yet their really problematic challenge is more internal – that of conflicts among the very values they endorse. I have proposed that we optimally have a balanced trade-off between opposing values. These include law-and-order vs. freedom, individualism vs. the common good, and adventure vs. security. Many true believers view most all these values positively. They even treat them as dogma – absolute ideals, written in stone, never to be violated. Maintaining this illusion, though, requires not seeing them in conflict with one another. Goldwater, for example, was apparently able to achieve this with regard to liberty and justice. Such is the defense mechanism of compartmentalization.
The engraving of this saying in stone offers an ironic challenge to the notion of Absolute Truth.
Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization involves erecting internal firewalls between contradictory positions which we hold. We consider each of the opposing sides one at a time, so that we don’t recognize the contradictions. When we delve more deeply into our policies promoting one ideal, we encounter how it limits its complement. For instance, we might promote freedom by allowing business owners to select their customers by whatever standard they choose. When they do so on grounds of race, religion, or gender, this discrimination infringes on justice for these groups. With compartmentalization, each value is addressed independently, allowing sequential coexistence of opposing polarized positions. This defense worked so well for Barry Goldwater, that he didn’t recognize the contradiction within two consecutive sentences.
A Sea of Uncertainty
So far, I have argued that limitations of logic, relativity of conflicting values, and ambiguity of paradoxes all challenge certainty in our convictions. Earlier, I had noted how our choices among various competing values boil down to personal preference. With so many viable options, our decisions can feel rather arbitrary. This only further diminishes our sense of certainty. If we base our security on such certainty, we won’t feel particularly safe. Then, we are likely to look outside ourselves, to rely on external sources for clear-cut answers.
Finding External Sources of Certainty
External sources of doctrine, group, and leader may promise straightforward answers to contentious political issues. These areas correspond to three moral values proposed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his Moral Foundations Theory. Here, he supplemented the usual standards of fairness and harm avoidance with sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to authority. Each of these three additions can reassure true believers of certainty in their polarized convictions.
Sanctity Backed by Religious Doctrine
Sanctity involves an ethical code emphasizing purity of thought and action, usually based on religious doctrine. Typically, the dogma affirms the absolute truth of its tenets. These are seen as trumping other values that may conflict with them. The Catholic Church’s claim of papal infallibility is but one example. With such dogma superceding other viewpoints, true believers can rest assured that their values and beliefs are absolute truths.
Loyalty to Group
Loyalty to the group is another external support that enables the illusion of certainty. True believers can achieve a sense of personal identity from being a member of a larger group. The pressure for group conformity, though, discourages the other principle component of individual identity – one’s uniqueness. This is consistent with Hoffer’s notion that mass movements actually discourage self-affirmation. Any sense of uniqueness is shared with the whole group and is in opposition to other groups. This establishes an “us vs. them” mentality, which lies at the heart of polarization. While this solidifies the true believers’ sense of meaning and purpose, it envisions a more hostile world. This ominous perspective likely leads them to hunker down in their polarized beliefs and values. It also leaves them even more dependent upon their external support system.
Allegiance to the Leader
Finally, true believers gravitate toward charismatic leaders who lay claim to having all the answers. They thus obtain their sense of value vicariously, through identifying with their leader. When the Wizard says to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, they oblige. No questions asked.
Dogma, Cult, and Authoritarian Leader
The values of sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to the leader present a formidable force for polarization. In their extreme versions, they promote rigid dogma, cults, and authoritarian leaders. This combination leaves the true believer almost impervious to influence from sources outside this triad. Logical reasoning seldom penetrates their political polarization – they simply are too well defended. Yet the authoritarian leaders and the proponents of the “us vs. them” dogma are even more resistant to change. They are simply unwilling to give up their power. This leaves the true believer as the weak link in the movement. My upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, will address the difficult challenge of engaging the true believer.
The Broader Perspective on Polarization
Prior to this last section, we have addressed political polarization primarily on the individual level, in basically psychological terms. It is when we step back and examine it on the larger political scale that we realize the potential for real danger. Then, we see political cults that poses challenges to our democracy. Factions at both poles of the political spectrum get locked into dysfunctional vicious cycle patterns. As I addressed in Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level, a common political pattern involves law-and-order conservatives and bleeding heart liberals clashing on how to handle major groups. Where the former see threats to our way of life, the latter see society’s victims. In a polarized society, there is little room for a nuanced perspective on the group in question. As the saying goes, “You’re either for us or against us.”
Where We Stand Today
We appear to be in one such vortex today, in the shadow of George Floyd’s tragic death. We could characterize the 2020 presidential race as a classic battle between law-and-order and bleeding hearts. That, however, would be a gross simplification – and wrong. On the one hand, Donald Trump’s position is polarized and dogmatic. He panders to his base by promising to quell and “dominate” the unrest and violence. If he has made any distinction between peaceful protesters and anarchists, it was only a passing footnote. He has excused bad cops for their “choking” under pressure and characterized right-wing vigilante militias as patriots. On the other hand, Joe Biden has highlighted the distinction between peaceful protesters and vandals, looters, and rioters. He seeks reform of our imperfect institutions, not their dismantlement. He seeks unification and healing, while Trump pursues division and dominance.
A Statement of Disclosure
I admit that I am not providing “fair and balanced” coverage in focusing on the polarized right. In my defense, I do so because that is where the power is. And as Lord Acton noted, corruption soon follows. Whether that be voter suppression, violations of the Hatch Act, seeking foreign assistance in elections, or other abuses, recent history bears that out. Such violations are not currently so apparent or menacing on the polarized left. Yes, there has been destruction and violence by a left-wing fringe, which warrants punishment. I fear that any harm to life and property, bad as it is, will be overshadowed by the law-and-order measures taken to suppress dissent. I like to think that I would challenge the political left similarly for any abuses comparable to the polarized right’s. When the pendulum of power swings in its direction, I could well be tested.
Behind the Scenes – Conspiracy?
I have my doubts whether the corporate/governmental complex, backed by their Super PACs, special interest lobbyists, and biased think tanks, will give up power willingly. They are just too invested in their pursuit of power, property, prestige, and privilege. Yes, this offers an alternative to the Deep State conspiracy in describing the behind-the-scene power structure. Still, I’d assert that it offers vastly better documentation than QAnon, Alex Jones, Fox Media, Breitbart, and OAN. But don’t take my word for it. Check out Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other lobbying groups serving the public, rather than special interests.
Where to from Here?
Hopefully, I have offered some clarity on the issue of political polarization. The 2020 ballot box has affirmed democracy over polarized dogma, autocratic leadership, and true-believer cult followers. Still, the gains are not written in stone. To paraphrase and extend a famous saying of uncertain origins, “The price of freedom [and justice, for that matter] is eternal vigilance.” There still needs to be major reckoning and healing before we can restore collaborative governance. We may not be able to reach die-hard true believers of the polar extremes, but we might try a fresh approach. Watch for my upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, where I will introduce “verbal judo.” If nothing else, perhaps we can reach enough independents to attain the critical mass needed for true reform. Stay tuned, keep an open mind, breathe deeply, and hang on for the roller coaster ride of a lifetime.
How is it that being self-aware is generally viewed favorably, whereas being self-conscious is not? After all, aren’t awareness and consciousness pretty much the same thing? Much has been made of being self-aware, going back to ancient Greece and the Socratic counsel to “know thyself.” More recently, mindfulness meditation, particularly with its focus on experiencing our bodies (e.g., our breathing), encourages self-awareness. As for being self-conscious, I recall the scene from The Lonely Guy in which the Steve Martin character eats out alone. A spotlight follows him as the maitre d’ escorts him to his table. The scene, with a gauntlet of gawking couples staring at him, captures the essence of self-consciousness.
The Mirror as a Symbol of Self-reflection
Being self-aware and being self-conscious both are examples of self-reflection. The most apt symbol of this is a mirror. A mirror allows us to gain perspective in viewing ourselves. We are looking at ourselves looking at ourselves. Yet, if we were in a hall of mirrors, we would quickly become disoriented and overwhelmed. This is the physical equivalent of watching ourselves reflecting on our experience of examining our thoughts. Difficult to follow? Well, then I’ve made my point. Such an internal hall of mirrors is one facet of self-consciousness.
Conducting our own Experiment
We can explore the quality of our self-reflection by looking at ourselves in the mirror. No, this is not one of Einstein’s “thought experiments.” So get up off your duff and go into the bathroom and look at yourself in the mirror. Who and what do you see? How much of this experience would you label as self-awareness, and how much as self-consciousness? And on what basis do you make this distinction? Is this distinction important to you? Why, or why not?
What’s Your Take?
Do you buy into Socrates’ dictum that “An unexamined life is not worth living”? Or does all this self-reflection just get in the way of living? And is the distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness relevant to answering this question? And if so, what distinguishes the two experiences from one another?
An Invitation to Participate
If you are looking to me for answers on this, you’ll have to wait a while. Rather than waiting until I’ve thoroughly addressed these questions, I want to put this topic out there now. Furthermore, I would like this exercise to be more interactive, so I welcome your input. I’ve done the exercise in front of the mirror myself, but I’ll hold off on sharing that. After all, I wouldn’t want to lead the witnesses. I will post your responses, either attributed to you or anonymously, as you wish. If you don’t specify, I’ll use my judgment. And if I don’t get much feedback, I might just go off on my own tangent. You wouldn’t want that, now would you?
In a previous blog about dealing with bullies and bullying, I suggested that Melania Trump upgrade her anti-bullying motto from “Be Best” to “Be our Best.” This subtle change emphasizes our ethical striving to treat others with respect. This meaning contrasts with simply pursuing excellence, as would be implied by “Be the Best.” Omitting that one word (i.e., “our” or “the”), besides being ungrammatical, leaves the intent of the initiative somewhat ambiguous. I suspect that this omission may have been in deference to her husband, who would prefer “Be the Best”, while “Be our Best” would be more fitting. Of course, I may be reading way too much into this choice of phrasing. In any event, I made this suggestion in my belief that this modification is consistent with our First Lady’s intent.
A Message Relevant for Both Children and Adults
I recognize that Melania Trump’s campaign focuses primarily on our youth, while I address the issue in terms of adult-to-adult interactions. On her website, she writes that “it is our responsibility as adults to educate and reinforce to [children] that when they are using their voices—whether verbally or online—they must choose their words wisely and speak with respect and compassion.” This message has no less relevance for encouraging mutual respect between adults.
The Importance of Being Good Role Models
I heartily endorse the First Lady’s sentiment. I further affirm that we adults must exemplify this lofty aspiration through our own actions. Otherwise, we are telling our children, “Do as I say, not as I do.” This message will then only confirm our hypocrisy and lead our youth to tune us out. I’d propose that our primary means of encouraging respect in our youngsters is through being good role models. This is just one reason that I am addressing the issue as it plays out in adult interactions.
Where to Start?
I initially undertook this blog to address how we might work on our own tendencies to judge, disparage, taunt, coerce, or otherwise bully others. While I came up with some worthy ideas, I was getting stuck with my writing. I then realized that I was preaching to the choir when there was a more pressing issue at hand: how do we deal with Bullies who are committed to their control of others and have no qualms about exercising it? I came to recognize that by focusing on self-improvement (i.e., “Be our Best”), I was neglecting to address the hard core Bullies who set such poor examples for our youth. And yes, I was ignoring the orange “elephant in the room.” Ironic, isn’t it? I was pulling my punches (figuratively speaking) with the Bully-in-Chief, when I had speculated that our First Lady was doing just that with her “Be Best” slogan.
“Orange elephant? I don’t see an orange elephant in the room.” “Who said anything about an orange elephant?” “No, I definitely didn’t see an orange elephant. What’s in your coffee?”
The Focus of This Post
I thus came to recognize that I must first address the art of coping with the bullying of others. For this, we need a good understanding of the problem to deal with it effectively. Next, we must recognize our own susceptibility to being bullied, so that we can inoculate ourselves against this impact. Then, we can develop a strategy for when and how to respond to such instances. Like a good warrior, we need to choose our battles and develop effective tactics, while also being flexible in responding to circumstances. At that point, we should be ready to deal with the bullying, applying appropriate assertiveness skills that we develop through our insight and practice.
What is our Goal?
We have outlined our approach, yet we have not yet identified what we hope to accomplish in our dealing with Bullies. Are we trying to make them change, such as by being more respectful and less controlling? Are we just trying to avoid the unpleasant business of involvement with them? Or is there another worthy goal?
Are We Trying to Change the Bullies?
Although we are focusing on dealing with Bullies, we probably should give up the idea of reforming them. Except for rather unusual circumstances, Bullies do not want to change. Thus, there are at least three good reasons for not trying to change who they are. First, this endeavor would be disrespecting them if they aren’t interested in changing. One of our chief complaints with them is their coercion, so it would be hypocritical for us to try to make them change. Second, our efforts are doomed to failure as long as they are committed to the Bully role. And third, trying to make them change is likely to encourage resistance, resulting in even more bullying. So, unless Bullies are seeking to change and asking for our help, we are better off pursuing another goal with them.
Are We Seeking to Avoid Conflict with Bullies?
That certainly is an option. And if we can do so without giving anything up, then go for it – it’ll be their loss. Yet in most cases, Bullies use verbal abuse and intimidation to get what they want, and avoiding conflict gives them that by default, usually at our expense. And we lose not just what we surrender to the Bully, but also our access to and comfort in the relevant settings. These may include home, family, work, church, gym, club, or favorite social gathering places. Furthermore, our capitulating to the Bullies’ demands only encourages them to use their heavy-handed approach in the future, whether with us or with others they can intimidate.
So, Where Does That Leave Us?
Our goal in dealing with Bullies is to take better care of ourselves and the people we care for, and not so much about the Bullies themselves. We aim to reclaim control over our lives and to regain and maintain our sense of self-worth. We achieve this through self-assertion and “self-inoculation.” We can develop appropriate strategies, techniques, and skills to stand up to Bullies. This is a challenging task, so it helps us to develop a mindset to neutralize the toxic effects of bullying.
What Is Bullying?
First, we need to define our term, so that we are all on the same page. We can define bullying as any act that is harmful to and coercive of others. This obviously includes not only inflicting physical pain and injury, but also threatening such harm or pain to others or their loved ones. Also included is taking of belongings through physical force or threat, blackmail, or extortion. Imposing involuntary servitude, abusing sexually, and depriving freedom and opportunity are other flagrant examples. Bullying can involve inflicting psychological harm, such as through ridicule, taunting, belittling, name-calling, and sarcasm. Harsh criticism and judgmentalism represent somewhat milder versions of bullying. Bribery appears somewhat of a gray area, as this may involve using one’s power and privilege to corrupt another’s value system.
The Bully Role
These various bullying activities do not occur as isolated events. Rather, they typically cluster together into what we can label as the Bully role. For many of us, this role is just one of several we may use in the normal course of social interaction. We do not particularly identify with the Bully role. Rather, we may employ it on particular occasions, such as when challenged or when highly invested in a particular outcome.
The Bully Personality Style
For some, though, the Bully role is the prominent manner of engaging across a wide variety of interactions. Its principle function is the acquisition of power and dominance. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to those for whom bullying is the primary role as Bullies. This pursuit may be solely for themselves, or it may serve a larger cause, such as a business, a government, a gang, or a family. Whatever the entity, Bullies personally identify with it and benefit from its power grab. While they may play out secondary roles, such as the Rebel, the Victim, and the Savior, Bullies do not particularly identify with these patterns; rather, they play out these styles to manipulate others in their pursuit of dominance. We can essentially summarize the Bullies’ moral code as “might equals right” and “the ends justifies the means,” with the ends being whatever they want.
Understanding Bullying
As my father always counseled me on my yard chores, you can’t get rid of weeds unless you get them by the roots – otherwise, they just keep growing back. In short, the Bully role serves the goals of consolidating one’s own power and control through discrediting and intimidating others. As noted in my previous blog on this subject, bullying is most prevalent in those lacking in their sense of intrinsic self-worth. This is a basic feeling of value in ourselves just as we are, without having to prove ourselves. Our Declaration of Independence refers to this sort of self-worth in affirming that “all [people] are created equal.” Without this foundation, Bullies seek to establish their self-worth through their dominance over others. This approach goes beyond conditional self-esteem, which simply involves proving oneself better than others by virtue of certain attributes or abilities. Rather, Bullies build themselves up by tearing others down. They apparently don’t believe in fair competition – perhaps out of the fear that they might lose. Also, a sense of entitlement is usually involved, as it provides further justification for the will to dominate. More often than not, though, Bullies need no justification, as they seldom consider their personal impact on others. This is typically related to their general lack of empathy for others.
Understanding Ourselves in Interactions with Bullies
Since we are addressing how we cope with bullying, we need to understand our involvement, including how we can get drawn into the web. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, knowing others is intelligence, while knowing ourselves is true wisdom. Besides, in our interactions with Bullies, we can only directly control our own actions, not theirs.
Self-Esteem
Much of susceptibility relates back to our self-esteem. Like Bullies, we may lack a strong sense of our intrinsic or basic self-worth. We just don’t feel good enough just the way we are. While Bullies answer this by dominating others, we might look to others for affirmation. Yet we often don’t exercise good judgment as to whom we trust to evaluate our qualities. For example, if we had critical parents, we might look to others of similar temperament for approval. This can leave us particularly vulnerable to the harsh appraisals of Bullies.
Aversion to Conflict
Another factor that makes us susceptible to Bullies is an aversion to conflict. Granted, there are good reasons to avoid or appease Bullies, as they can impose severe constraints or injury for our resistance. Yet if we habitually avoid conflict, we usually sell ourselves out at a much lower threat level. Bullies often are good at detecting fear, and they readily exploit such vulnerability. This interaction pattern cultivates a Victim role that complements the Bully role, as I have addressed in my various vicious cycle articles.
Compassion for Others
Still others of us get drawn into the fray when we observe Bullies preying on Victims. Incensed by their persecution, we readily jump in to rescue the apparently helpless Victims. We tap into our compassion for the underdog, adopting a “caped-crusader” Rescuer role to save them. This expands the interaction to a three-role vicious cycle, which Steven Karpman identified as the Persecutor—Victim—Rescuer cycle. The Rescuer role actual lends stability to this pattern. For an analogy, consider the tripod, a three-legged support for a camera. You don’t see very many bipods (i.e., two-legged supports) around, do you? They simply lack stability. The same goes for vicious cycles. Unfortunately, such stable cyclical patterns actually function to perpetuate the problems rather than resolving them. I have covered this pattern in some detail in my article, Vicious Cycles in Relationships 2.0.
The Morality Police
A further complication of our compassionate concern occurs when our moral outrage at the Bullies overshadows our caring for the Victims. We are particularly vulnerable to this pull to engage with Bullies when we have a keen sense of justice and fair play. We then tend to assume that our ethical code is universal, applying to ourselves and others. While this moral indignation addresses the Bullies’ mistreatment of Victims, it often prioritizes punishing Bullies over redressing the harm inflicted on Victims. Thus, Victims often end up getting lost in the shuffle.
The Plot Thickens
It’s challenging enough to get caught up in a three-role vicious cycle, such as the Bully—Victim—Rescuer cycle. Yet the situation gets even worse when we add taking on secondary roles into the equation. As we will see, that can lead to the formation of an alternate vicious cycle. Now, for the details . . .
The Rescuer as Critic of Bullies
Our interactions with Bullies get more complicated when we play out secondary roles in our repertoire. While the Rescuer may be our primary role, we often undertake a supportive secondary role as Critic toward Bullies, especially when we have a strong moralistic streak. We do so particularly when we pass judgment on their character, rather than just criticizing their actions. The irony of this shift is that the moralistic Critic is similar to the Bully in being an Oppressor role. Perhaps this is where the term “bully pulpit” comes from. Anyhow, we can take only limited consolation in assuring ourselves that it’s a milder form of oppression.
The Bully’s Gambit as Victim/Rebel
The Rescuers’ Critic role provides Bullies the opportunity to play out their own secondary roles to solidify their dominance. They do so by shifting into a secondary role of Victim, claiming that their rights are being violated. Or they might complain how their character is being maligned. Of course, Bullies aren’t comfortable staying in a Victim role, with its implied powerlessness. They tend to shift into a Rebel role, voicing defiance against their detractors. Such underdog messages find a sympathetic audience among those who feel ignored or discounted. They often feel they don’t have a voice, and they enthusiastically endorse someone who can speak for them.
The Victim as Critic of Bullies
Moral judgment can also play out when we identify as Victims oppressed by Bullies. This follows much the same pattern as with Rescuers, with our taking on the Critic role toward Bullies. With this shift our moral outrage emerges, with that energy available for asserting ourselves. Our blaming Bullies serves to deflect the focus from ourselves, providing cover when we feel particularly vulnerable. As with Rescuers assuming the Critic role, Bullies often respond by playing their own Victim and Rebel cards in appealing to their support base.
An Alternative Vicious Cycle
These shifts into secondary roles set up an alternative vicious cycle – the Rescuer/Victim-as-Critic – Bully-as-Victim/Rebel – Bully’s Loyal Followers. You will note that the roles still designate each participant’s primary role identification, in addition to the secondary role at play in this pattern. This labeling emphasizes that the participants remain true to their core identity, even when taking on a contrasting secondary role. For example, even when adopting the Victim role, Bullies do so as a ploy in their pursuit of domination. For simplicity’s sake, though, we can label the pattern a Critic – Rebel – Rebel’s Entourage.
The Contrasting Vicious Cycles
We thus have two contrasting vicious cycles, with an overlap of participants taking on roles in the two patterns. Each pattern puts a different role in a more positive light. The Bully — Victim — Rescuer cycle favors the righteousness of the Rescuer role, whereas the Critic – Rebel – Rebel’s Entourage cycle favors the Rebel. With these contrasting outlooks, is it any wonder that we end up talking past one another? While this presents an abstract profile of a rather complicated process, we need look no further than the current presidential politics for apt examples. I trust that readers will find sufficient examples to bring these abstract concepts to life.
Breaking Free from the Bully’s Web
It is indeed ironic that our moralistic endeavors to thwart the abusive practices of Bullies may actually serve to promote their cause. Yet such is the nature of vicious cycle patterns. I have explored elsewhere the general challenge of breaking free from vicious cycles. Here, though, we will address the specific case of doing so in dealing with Bullies. In this section we will explore how we can change our perspective to be less susceptible to the Bullies’ “hooks.” Later, we will address actual strategies we might practice. Thus, we are pursuing a two-prong approach of experience and action. (My diagramming of vicious cycle patterns lends itself to such an approach.)
Velcro™ and Teflon™
Whichever of these qualities we may possess, (i.e., conditional self-esteem reliant on external validation, conflict avoidance, compassion for ourselves and others, moralistic judgment), they often draw us into conflict with Bullies. We tend to play out these vicious cycle patterns time and again. As much as we might try to disengage, we often find ourselves drawn back in. We are like the side of Velcro™ with the loops, with Bullies having the side with hooks to snag us. We struggle to break free, often to no avail. The previous section outlines our various outlooks that predispose us to getting caught up in conflict with Bullies. Now we can explore other available perspectives that offer some relief, if not liberation, from the Bullies’ torment. By retracting our loops, the Bullies have nothing for their hooks to grab onto. Velcro™ hooks are ineffective at snagging Teflon™ – yet we must figure out how to coat our psychological fabric.
Knowing and Valuing Ourselves
Part of the problem may be that we are trying to change the Bully, with little attention to our role in the pattern. This is only natural, as stated in the gospel verse, that it is easier to spot the splinter in another’s eye than to recognize the beam in our own. After all, we can view others directly from many angles, yet we need a mirror to view our bodies with perspective. Mirrors can also cause distortion, whether they be physical mirrors or the social mirrors that others provide by describing how they see us. For this reason, we need to choose wisely whom we trust to give us feedback. And style points count – candid honesty, not brutal honesty.
Working on Self-Esteem
What is at stake is not only how we see ourselves, but also how we value ourselves. Others contribute to this process not only by describing what they see in us, but also by evaluating us. Bullies are usually quick to recognize our shortcomings – and to let us know about them. We should realize that we have the ability to decide for ourselves to whom we grant the authority of approval and disapproval. This option was recently dramatized in a recent observation by Stephan Pastis in Pearls before Swine. We can give Bullies that power, or we can deny them it.
Using the Challenging Feedback without Assuming Inferiority
Before tuning the Bullies out, we should note that critical feedback can be valuable – even from Bullies. The Tao Te Ching notes that sages consider those who point out their flaws as their cherished teachers. Our adversaries will often tell us what our friends hesitate to mention. We can use that feedback for improving ourselves, even if it was intended to be hurtful. First, though, we need to detoxify the message to make it more palatable.
On Shame and Guilt
Bullies often identify our faults in terms of who we are, with the intent of inducing shame. We have the option, however, of viewing their feedback in terms of our actions – what we did, rather than who we are. While this usually induces guilt, that is not necessarily bad – we can use the feedback for improving our behavior. Keep in mind that it’s easier to change what we do than to change who we are. Furthermore, guilt encourages us to express remorse and make amends, thereby working toward healing any hurt we may have caused others – or ourselves. And as we work at changing our actions, we may well discover that we are gradually changing ourselves.
On Gratitude for the Bullies’ “Presents”
Thus, we should recognize that Bullies may give us valuable presents, however crudely wrapped in shaming and belittling. If we are feeling confident enough in ourselves, we might even thank them for the constructive feedback that we can use to make our actions even more effective! Humility and the ability to acknowledge our shortcomings can be a sign of personal strength, even if Bullies don’t see things that way. Still, a Miranda warning is appropriate here – whatever we say can (and will!) be used against us from the Bullies’ pulpits.
On Being Our Best
In cultivating our sense of self-worth, we need to keep our expectations in order. We don’t need to be the best – it is sufficient to be our best. After all, it’s the best we can do! Besides, except in the rare instance of ties, there is only one first place in any contest. As such, striving to be the best can be a set-up for disappointment. Of course, striving to be the best can motivate us to do better. Still, we need to accept a lesser outcome, and to be content with our personal best. We should realize that all participants in a contest have value. First place holds little significance without others finishing second, third, and so on. Furthermore, the “also-rans” serve to bring out the best performance in the winner. This is true not only for athletic competition, but also for other endeavors.
Dealing with our own Worst Critic
Bullies would not be nearly as effective in belittling and intimidating us without their having some inside help. Their harsh judgments of us are only effective when they resonate with critical attitudes that we hold toward ourselves. Perhaps the most powerful antidote for external criticism is taming that “inner critic.” This is not that easy, as the critic runs deeper than our intellect – it lives in our gut. It may have even been installed there before we had words to label it. As such, it resides beyond the reach of mere rational challenge.
“Physician, Heal Thyself” – Through Stories
There is a Sufi saying that states that if you want to change a person’s mind, you engage in a rational discourse, but if you want to touch a person’s heart, you tell a story. (If this was written by someone other than “anonymous,” I have lost that information, and would appreciate input that gives that person credit.) I have shared one of my stories,The Man with a Monkey on his Back, which addresses taming the inner critic. Yet perhaps the most potent stories are our own, particularly when they are works in progress.
Allowing Others to Bear Witness
Our stories are most liberating when we have affirming listeners to bear witness to our testimony. It is important for us to choose our audiences wisely, though. Those who can validate our struggles can help us to “exorcise” our inner critics . And when family and friends are not up to this challenge, there are psychotherapists and counselors. With or without such support, this work can put us largely out of reach of the emotional clutches of scornful Bullies.
Facing Up to Conflict
The tendency to avoid conflict is another trait that gives Bullies control over us. If we don’t take a stand with them, they get what they want from us by default. They further develop their skills at bullying, while our self-care atrophies. This does not necessarily mean engaging with them. Refusing to give ground while not responding can be a potent way of taking a stand.
Conflict in Daily Life
Somewhere in his book, The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler posed the question of when we ever get immersed in a story that does not have some sort of conflict in it. Indeed, plot is usually based on conflict, whether internal, interpersonal, or natural. So how can we get so captivated by conflict in a novel, when we find conflict so aversive in our own lives? Certainly, the threat to our own life, health, and livelihood can be a key factor. This, however, is usually not the case. More often, the conflict involves how we view and value ourselves. In short, we place our “ego” on the line.
Protecting and Boosting our Egos
“Ego” is shorthand for the conditional and relative form of self-worth. It is largely derived from comparing ourselves with others on the basis of our personal qualities. This measure of self-worth is rather transient. As the saying in sales goes, “you are only as good as your last sale.” So, even when we are on top of the world, our positive self-worth is vulnerable to downturns. Thus, we may not be able to fully enjoy our successes due to worries over possible future failures. And if not that, our concern with the quality of our performance may diminish the intrinsic enjoyment of that activity. The negative impact of our concern with performance is perhaps the reason why the Tao Te Ching poses the question, “Success or failure: which is more destructive?” (quoted from Stephen Mitchell’s 1988 translation of the work).
The Ego as our Vulnerable Point
Thus, our egos make us more susceptible to belittling and shaming. Humiliation often occurs when others note our limitations before we have recognized and admitted them ourselves. And Bullies always seem to be around to expose our shortcomings, thus bringing out our embarrassment and shame.
Humility as an Antidote for Humiliation
We have another option, though – that of practicing humility. We can voluntarily climb down from our pedestal and take our place alongside others on the ground floor. In doing so, we see ourselves struggling with life’s problems and paradoxes, just like everyone else does. Through affirming our intrinsic self-worth, we develop positive regard for all, others as well as ourselves. In this way we can find consolation for our wounds, whether inflicted by Bullies or by the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” With this grounding, we don’t have as far to fall as we do from atop a pedestal. This outlook thus buffers us from the Bullies’ verbal assault, which they may find frustrating.
Further Benefits of Humility
Humility involves accepting our shortcomings, whereas shame and humiliation discourage us from examining our faults. When these errors are simply mistakes, we can learn from them and correct them. In the case of transgressions, we have the added opportunity to express regret and to make amends. By taking such responsibility for our actions, we usually earn the compassion and respect of others. And having a viable support network offers additional protection against Bullies.
Compassion
We have noted how compassion for ourselves helps blunt the impact of Bullies’ scorn. Yet that compassion, when directed toward the Bullies’ victims, pulls us into conflict with those Bullies. We may find ourselves taking on a Rescuer role of protecting the downtrodden from the Bullies’ abuses. In doing so, we run the risk of taking care of them, when caring for them is called for. This is particularly true when they are capable of fending for themselves. Even when they lack the skills to deal with Bullies effectively, they often can develop those skills. This takes practice, though – and yes, trial-and-error. Our efforts can thwart those attempts. Instead, our moral support and coaching can help them to persist in their efforts. Taking this approach expresses our confidence in their ability to stand up to Bullies. Furthermore, our assuming this back-up role challenges us to recognize our limitations. Here is just another opportunity to practice humility.
For Further Study . . .
In this post, I am devoting considerably less attention to compassion toward others than other complications in dealing with Bullies. In doing so, I am not minimizing the importance of this factor. Rather, I have addressed this matter in considerably more detail in a previous post. I refer interested readers to Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue for further study.
Moral Judgmentalism
Yet another factor that draws us into conflict with Bullies is our concern with their ethics and morality. While the Rescuer or Victim may be our primary role, we often have developed a prominent secondary role of Critic toward Bullies. Here, we can waste much time and energy with our self-righteous moral indignation at Bullies. Furthermore, this approach is often counterproductive: Bullies can actually exploit criticism against them by playing the Victim card, which enlists support among their followers. Gaining a fresh perspective on judgmentalism can help us deal with Bullies more effectively.
A Code of Absolute Values
One sticking point that keeps us locked in conflict can be an adherence to a code of absolute values and rights. We can view our value system as if it were written in stone – meaning that it is timeless, permanent and applicable to the entire world. Yet what happens when these supposedly absolute values conflict with one another? This should be sufficient to keep us in ongoing turmoil, not just with others from different backgrounds, but also within ourselves.
Values in Conflict
Sometimes these conflicts in values are incidental and depend upon the particular circumstance we are in. Yet there are also particular values that inherently conflict with one another. One example is being vs. becoming (i.e., being fully present in the moment vs. planning for the future). Another is individuality vs. belonging (i.e., being your own person vs. conforming to a group). Yet another is freedom vs. order, as living in an orderly society requires some constraints on freedom. We can refer to such instances as examples of paradox, a topic I have explored in considerable detail in Muddling Down a Middle Path and Living Rationally with Paradox.
Assumption of our Values as Absolute
Even with realizing that at least some of our ethical decisions require reconciliation between competing values, we may still insist that our own moral code applies to others as much as it does to ourselves. In judging others by our own moral standards, we refuse to recognize that others may be committed to value systems in conflict with our own. We will then tend to talk (or SCREAM!) past one another, yet not listen.
Our Values and Nature
Another assumption that sustains our adamant moral judgment of Bullies is an attitude that they are somehow violating a Law of Nature, or at least violating what it means to be human. If we stop to reflect on the rest of the animal kingdom, we will recognize that various species are programmed by their instincts for exercising dominance in matters of food, mating, and territory. We could assert that alpha males (or females) in these species are Bullies, yet we are more likely to excuse them as following the natural order. On the other hand, we can make comparable claims that bonding and cooperation among members of the same species are instinctual and therefore natural. Many, if not most, species demonstrate a balance of competitive and cooperative drives, and homo sapiens is no exception. Our system is less determined by instinct, though, which means that culture plays a greater role in determining this balance between competition and cooperation – hence, our development of social norms, moral codes, and the rule of law.
Our Rights and Social Convention
The fact that social learning plays such a key role in determining our ethics conveys some sense of arbitrariness to our moral codes. While some may interpret this as implying that “anything goes,” a more conservative interpretation is that we need an honest dialogue if we are to sort out our ethical differences. Of course, Bullies are unlikely to pursue this exercise, as it threatens to show their hand. When they do engage in this discussion, we can usually count on hearing lies, half-truths, and various logical fallacies.
Understanding the Bully’s Moral Code
We can essentially summarize the Bully’s moral code as “Might equals right” and “The ends justifies the means,” with the ends being whatever they want. Thus, attempts at discussions ethics with them would simply be an exercise in futility. Recognizing this can save us much time, energy, and aggravation. Our attempts at persuasion are more likely to be effective when we can convince them that it is in their best interest to heed our requests or demands. Since we are typically in a one-down situation with them, it often is necessary to develop alliances to gain leverage.
The Ongoing Struggle to Get and Keep our Rights
While our American Declaration of Independence stipulates certain unalienable rights, they can still be taken away from us. As a variant of an often cited saying states, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” This goes for other rights and values, such as justice, order, security, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship. We soon recognize that these rights are not free, but may at times come at a rather dear cost.
Freedom Is Not Free (And Neither Is Justice)
If we are only pursuing these rights for our individual selves, we would not be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. After all, what are liberty and the pursuit of happiness worth to us, if we are dead? Sacrificing life and limb only makes sense if we are going to battle for others who are likely to survive the persecution intact and can appreciate these hard-won rights. The fight for the greater good requires an identity that transcends the individual self. With the potentially high cost of challenging Bullies, we need to assess the potential risks to make an informed decision for our rights. (I refer the readers to the Black Box Warning in this post.)
The Value of Struggle in Appreciating our Rights
We value our rights more when we struggle for them than when they are bestowed upon us. Otherwise, we would take them for granted. Furthermore, we often find a purpose or noble cause for our life, especially when joined with others in a common pursuit.
When the Search for Value Goes Awry
Notice that our Declaration of Independence specifies the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of wealth and power, as an unalienable right. Those with flawed identity and value systems are unlikely to appreciate this distinction. For example, we have a tendency in this country to conflate wealth with happiness. (While there certainly is a relationship between the two, they are not identical. The strongest correlation is at the lower income and wealth level, which basically states that misery is associated with poverty, more than happiness being associated with wealth.)
Entitlement and the Material World
Along with the pursuit of wealth often comes a sense of entitlement. In contrast to earning our rights through struggle or experiencing gratitude for others’ support, entitlement lessens our appreciation for our position in life. It also serves as justification for getting our due – even if that derives from our accident of birth. And this inequity in the earth’s treasures is compounded when the rich use unfair advantage in amassing their wealth, which I interpret as a form of bullying. It is indeed tragic that the misguided efforts of some to find happiness for themselves result in oppression and poverty for so many. To paraphrase a biblical proverb (Matthew 19:24): “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a wealthy person to find salvation.” I would add that this is as true for our earthly lives as much as it is for any assumed afterlife.
Compassion for Bullies?
Does the preceding portrayal of Bullies as lost souls call out for caring for them? In answering that, I would suggest a problem with showing compassion for their plight before they recognize the error of their ways. They would likely interpret the concern as pity and feel patronized. They might even call us “do-gooders” or “snowflakes.” And they would have a point. I would suggest that it is condescending to express compassion for them without also holding them accountable for their words and deeds. We still can have compassion for them, although this can be quite difficult in the middle of oppression. And we can still advocate effectively for ourselves while feeling compassionate – Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. have demonstrated that. And the Tao Te Ching reframes the battle of good and evil more in terms of wisdom and ignorance: ‘What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher? And what is a bad man but a good man’s project?” (Stephen Mitchell’s translation, 1988)
What to Do with our Feelings
Addressing how we deal with Bullies would be incomplete without discussing how we handle our feelings. Bullies know just how to push our emotional buttons. We need to decide whether to let them hijack our controls, or whether we take charge of them ourselves. We also need to recognize that emphasizing rationality and reason often leads to suppressing our feelings, when we need to process and integrate them, so we can channel that energy into effective action. Thus, we can use some exploration into how to accomplish this.
Feelings as Motivation to Action
Feelings motivate us to engage in our personal world, in one way or another. In fact, “emotion” and “move” share the same Latin root, movere, to move. Our feelings can be our friends – even our unpleasant ones. Yet they can also work on us, which often turns out to work against us. Still, we can take responsibility for our feelings, so that they can work for us.
Some Background – Where our Feelings Move Us
Our various emotions generally move us in different directions in relation to the object of our concerns – toward, away, or against. The love/caring cluster draws us toward people, to engage with them. The annoyance/anger cluster also pulls us toward others, yet against rather than with them. Depending on the intensity of the anger, it may come out as assertion or aggression. The anxiety/fear cluster moves us away from those people or events which threaten us. Such avoidance, also called the flight response, helps to escape dangerous situations, but may also lead to missing out on opportunities. We can resign ourselves to unconditional surrender, or we can use a strategic retreat to plan out our tactics to engage. The sadness/despair cluster is somewhat an exception to the “moving” aspect of emotions, as such feelings often immobilize us. This allows us the opportunity to grieve over our losses, yet also runs the risk of sinking us into a quagmire of depression.
When Feelings Are in Conflict – or Not
Encountering Bullies usually challenges us with conflicting feelings related to the various events and issues (e.g., finances, work, classes, outings, and social networks) that are jeopardized by the bullying. We may not have conflicting feelings toward the Bullies (e.g., we may totally detest them), but we may find appealing whatever or whoever the Bully is preventing us from pursuing. This is the approach-avoidance conflict. And if this isn’t the case? Then no conflict, no problem, case closed. We can avoid the Bully without giving anything up. Otherwise, and as usually is the case, we have some feelings to sort out.
The Hazard of Acting on Impulse
If we don’t care to process our feelings, then we can always act on impulse – “shoot (our mouth off) first, ask questions later.” The feelings come out raw, not refined. Going off half-cocked usually doesn’t work out so well, as suggested by the common phrase, “impotent rage.” We’ve also heard the phrase, “so mad we can’t see straight,” which can also be applied to other intense feelings. When this occurs, the Bully has succeeded in pushing our buttons. Advantage – Bully. In most cases, we can take the opportunity to settle down and put things into perspective, even if we need to say, “Let me get back to you on that,” or something to that effect.
The Exception: The Fight or Flight Emergency
Of course, there is one situation when acting on impulse or instinct can pay off. That occurs when we encounter life-or-death crisis situations, and speed is of the essence. These are occasions when the fight-or-flight response is called for – immediate action, no equivocating. Fortunately, most encounters with Bullies are not such dire emergencies, and we have the opportunity to deliberate – that is, if we claim it, as Bullies often expect immediate responses.
Refining our Raw Anger
In less critical situations, we have another option – that of sorting through the various feelings evoked by Bullies. With our task of gaining perspective on our interactions with Bullies, addressed earlier in this article, we come to recognize that we run the gamut of attitudes and feelings, from anxiety to hopelessness to anger, and perhaps even a bit of adventure. This exploration can be analogous to forging an alloy of steel from iron and carbon, with the tempering process giving us strength, resiliency, hardness, flexibility, and resistance to corrosion. All these qualities are useful not just in dealing with Bullies, but also in confronting other types of stress of daily life. We are able to harness what is often a destructive force to use it constructively. We can apply this energy, not toward subjugating and vanquishing our adversaries, as Bullies are prone to do, but toward affirming our values and rights.
Making Lemonade and Delving into Life’s Paradoxes
Earlier in this section, we considered various perspectives that help us to view the challenges we face as less foreboding, and perhaps even as opportunities. Yes, it’s the old saying about learning to make lemonade, when life hands you a bowl of lemons. Another way of saying this is by asserting that conflict is not only normal, but healthy, as I proposed at the beginning of my article,Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: the Art of Assertiveness. This thesis basically states that conflict is the medium through which we strike a balance between self-concern and caring for others, and between individuality and belonging, among various other paradoxical dualities. While such an approach defies our striving for simple, straightforward answers to life’s problems, it opens the door to life’s mysteries. All I can say is “Life’s a trip – enjoy the ride.”
Summary: Changing our Perspective
So far we have identified various factors that draw us into conflict with Bullies: an insecure sense of self-worth, vulnerable to insults and intimidation; an aversion to conflict; a compassion for others, with a dose of the caped-crusader syndrome; and moralistic judgmentalism. We have explored alternative attitudes and outlooks which can loosen the grip that these concerns have on us. These perspectives help us to be less emotionally reactive to us less susceptible to the Bullies’ provocations. Hopefully, the rationale for these positions is sufficiently compelling to practice. Yes, they do require practice, as our default settings likely started early, perhaps even before we had words for them. By doing the detective work to recognize where our troubling outlooks originated, we can understand how we became vulnerable to the Bullies’ oppression. This can help us to be more self-accepting, which enables us to envision better stories for ourselves – ones that break the bonds of the oppressive Bullies – both internal and external.
Assertiveness: Putting Self-Acceptance into Action
Thus far, this article has focused on the internal changes which we can cultivate to limit the control that Bullies have over us. Indeed, a healthy self-affirming perspective can inoculate us against the Bullies’ demeaning words and actions. Still, there are situations when Bullies are able to manipulate our environment in a way that unfairly limits our possibilities or causes undue hardship. Such occasions call out for more than just attitude adjustment. A healthy perspective can often save us some grief, but it does not tackle the source of the problem – at least not the external source. Taking action is where “the rubber meets the road.” This is where developing our assertiveness skills and strategies come into play.
Assertion with Bullies
Bullies are not going to stop bullying just because we ask them to. In fact, they are just as likely to take such a request or demand as a challenge and escalate their bullying. So, we have to approach them in a way that they will take seriously, which means being assertive. There are plenty of resources for assertiveness, with my post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: the Art of Assertiveness, among them. These works typically recommend steps of stating the problem, describing how it affects us, asserting what we want from the other, and perhaps proposing the incentives for making this change. While this approach is sound for trustworthy relationships, it requires some modification to be effective with Bullies.
Identifying the Problem
The first step of asserting ourselves with Bullies is stating what the problem is. It is important to focus on the current situation and to specify their actions and speech that we find objectionable. It can be tempting to recite a litany of prior examples, yet this often invites their defense and counter-attack (e.g., “But you . . .”). At least let them ask “When have I ever . . . ?” before offering past examples. Also, focus on their actions, not on who they are. This means resisting the urge to label them. Responding in kind not only escalates tension, but also undermines our personal authority. Even when the Bully disrespects this stance, we still maintain our self-respect.
Resisting the Urge to Attack the Bullies’ Character
It is worthwhile here to address the rationale behind focusing on the Bullies’ speech and actions, rather than on their character. As we have addressed earlier in this article, attacking the character of Bullies is similar to bullying, though, granted, a milder version than their intimidation, threats, or ridicule. As such, it allows them to play a mixed role of Victim and Rebel, allowing them to complain about being maligned or mistreated. With this ploy they appeal to a wide following among others who feel ignored or discounted. Even while playing the Victim role, Bullies stay true to their pursuit of power and domination, and enlisting a sympathetic following serves that cause. Thus, character assassination may play into their hands and actually serve to promote their cause.
“Just the Facts, Ma’am”
Words and deeds are directly verifiable, particularly in this era of social media. They are thus less likely to be in dispute than character, which requires making inferences about values, motivations, and intentions. And what do we base such speculations on? On what we have direct access to – the Bully’s words and deeds! We are generally better off addressing the Bullies’ public behavior and avoiding the inevitable debate about the intentions in their heart that come with character analysis. This leaves us free to explore the impact of their bullying on their Victims, which is the focus of the next step in self-assertion. This focus also sets us up for the following step, which is to make our request or demand for change.
Identifying the Problem’s Impact on Us
The next step involves identifying why the Bullies’ behaviors are problems for us – we need to own our complaints by addressing their impact on us. With their disregard for respect and safety, it would be rather naïve for us to trust Bullies with our personal feelings. This is particularly true for feelings of hurt and anxiety, which Bullies are likely to interpret as weaknesses to exploit. They would have us for lunch – as the main course, not as guests! For this reason, we may prefer to identify their problematic behavior without drawing attention to our feelings. Instead, we might note how the Bullies are interfering with our plans and activities.
Now Is Not the Time to Be Vulnerable
We should note that focusing on our own feelings feeds into the Bully’s offensive posture, whereas addressing their problematic behaviors puts them on the defensive. For this reason, it can be more effective to label their behavior as annoying, irritating, presumptuous, etc., thus addressing our feelings only indirectly, by stating their behavior’s emotional impact. For example, we might share how we find the Bullies’ actions or speech annoying, irritating, demeaning, or simply distracting. Here, we are putting the accent on the quality of their behavior, not on our feelings. Note that we are still addressing their speech and actions, rather than disparaging their character. Also observe that these adjectives present our feelings as being at the fight end of the fight-or-flight responses to threat, thus discouraging them from seeing us as weak. This is not the time to be vulnerable and expose our jugular. Lacking in empathy, Bullies will offer no conciliatory words – unless heavily spiced with sarcasm. This version of stating the Bullies’ impact on us has the added advantage of keeping the focus on their problematic behavior, rather than inviting them to focus on us.
Requesting Change
Much of the advice for identifying the problem also applies to making our request for change: focus on the Bullies’ behavior, not their character; and limit the request to specific current behavior, rather than bringing up past grievances. In addressing behavior, we appeal to their guilt for what they did or didn’t do; in focusing on character, we call for their shame for who they are. They can usually change how they act and speak on the spot, while changing who they are takes a lot longer, even if they wanted to. We need to be specific and focus on how they treat us, not on how they treat everyone. If the Bully role is particularly prominent for them, they’ll get similar feedback from others.
Asking for What We Need and Want
We’re better off focusing our requests on what we need and want, not on what the Bully deserves. Unless we hold some authoritative position, it is not our place to dispense justice or mete out punishment. On the other hand, we have a right to reparation for damages incurred. For our own sake, we should heed the advice of the civil rights song, to “keep our eyes on the prize.” We need to look out for ourselves, rather than trying to makeover, reform, or take down the Bullies. We can ask for compensation for damages, a retraction and cessation of threats, and even an apology.
The Issue of an Apology
We need to limit our expectations to observable speech and action, and not insist on the purity of their intentions, such as sincere remorse. It can be helpful to keep in mind the reputed motto of Eddie Haskell, of Leave It to Beaver fame: “Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but sincerity is next to impossible. That’s why we have etiquette.” Bullies may simply go through the motions of an apology, or they might lace it with a dose of sarcasm. In either case, it is probably better to treat it as an expression of genuine remorse. This actually sets up a dilemma for them – do they accept the one-down position of being interpreted as having made a meaningful apology, or do they blow their cover by admitting their insincerity? It is a “lose—lose” situation for them – with the possible consolation prize that they might learn a lesson from their experience.
Stipulating Consequences
Bullies are hardly inclined to honor our requests or demands just because we ask them to. Their decisions are generally based on their own interests, not according to the needs and wants of others. In considering the consequences, we need to assess our leverage: what do we have as incentives, whether rewards or punishment?
Rewards
In considering rewards, we need to consider what we can offer them that doesn’t cost us much. If we pay a significant price, we are practicing appeasement, which will only encourage further bullying. While we may catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, our intangible rewards may not be all that effective with Bullies. With their having disparaged us, they may not see our respect or concern for them as being of much value. The promise of “warm fuzzies” is hardly a reward for them. Even if secretly desired, Bullies would not admit it, least of all in front of their entourage of supporters. It is much safer for them to continue demanding our subservience.
Punishment
Our threats of negative consequences for continued disrespect and abuse are unlikely to be very effective, either. We may have limited leverage with Bullies, as they often want little more from us than to be the hapless targets of their abuse. In this case, it can be more effective to simply ignoring them while going about our usual business. Their failure to gain our submission would challenge their self-image of dominance, which could discourage them from calling us out the next time. We could show them personal respect by addressing their disrespect toward us in private. We could have to wait for this opportunity, with this delay diminishing the impact of our feedback. Furthermore, this gesture is of doubtful use, as Bullies likely would interpret this as a weak response. Still, it can be an expression of common courtesy that would undercut any future claim of being blindsided when we call them out publicly the next time – they can’t say they weren’t warned. Of course, if there isn’t a next time, then either they heeded our request or the instance had been a one-shot occurrence, not enough cause to embarrass them over.
Follow-through on Incentives
Whether offered rewards for honoring our requests or threatened with punishment for ignoring them, Bullies are unlikely to take such incentives seriously. For them, action speaks louder than words, and they usually need to experience the actual consequences to learn to curb their disrespect and abuse. Bullies are likely to interpret our “warning shots across the bow” as idle threats, at least until they experience a direct hit. Since Bullies often want little more from us than to submit to their dominance, the limited leverage we have is in maintaining our poise and self-respect under fire. This standing our ground and refusal either to submit or to respond in kind undermines their attempt to bolster their self-esteem by lowering ours. Eventually, they may learn to look elsewhere.
Calling in the Cavalry
Individually, we may have limited leverage with Bullies, yet there is strength in numbers. Their belittling, intimidation, and abuse do not occur in a vacuum. Bullies work to project power and control so that their followers will validate their self-worth. Their subjugation of others would serve little purpose without an audience to provide that affirmation. By the same token, as targets of their abuse, we can enhance our leverage with Bullies by recruiting onlookers to our cause. In addition to uniting with others in similar plights, we can often gain the support of self-described independents and neutral observers. We can perhaps best achieve this by refusing to respond to Bullies in kind and by conducting ourselves with resolute dignity. While this style is unlikely to win over the Bullies’ ardent fans, it’s unlikely to incite their ridicule or contempt or to arouse their self-righteous indignation. And there’s a chance of earning some respect among their more tepid followers. Yet our greatest leverage may come from filing a grievance with the appropriate officials, such as the police, court system, employer, or human resource officer. Of course, this only works when Bullies have violated some law, policy, or protocol, and when clear documentation is available. Another important condition is that the official has authority over the Bully. This cannot be taken for granted, as some whistleblowers in our government’s executive branch have found out the hard way.
Brevity, but with Persistence
With assertion with Bullies, brevity tends to works better. Lengthier explanations are more likely to come across as tentative, deferential, and even apologetic. Skillful Bullies know how to exploit this. It is better to save any processing of the interaction for later, after the Bully has honored our request, if at all. In this way, we indicate to the Bully through our actions that we will not tolerate disrespectful or abusive treatment. If Bullies do shed their default role and act respectfully, don’t expect this to last. It can be all too easy for them to slip back into character. If this role has become habitual, they may not even realize it. Like the rest of us, Bullies are rarely one-trial learners. They need reminders to help them remain respectful and nonthreatening toward others. And we need reminders that maintaining our freedom and fair treatment requires eternal vigilance.
Negotiating with Bullies
Bullies’ use of intimidation creates a duress that diminishes our ability to consent. As I addressed in my previous post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness, conflict resolution requires safety and respect. As we have defined bullying, these two qualities are lacking. While I am no lawyer, my understanding is that for a contract to be legally binding, it must be freely entered into by all parties – meaning no undue duress. That being said, there can be a fine line between using leverage and exerting duress – and a blurry one, at that. Thus, negotiation recommends caution, such as clarifying the terms of the agreement and documenting any coercive pressure.
Conditions for Beneficial Negotiation
With these precautions, we still might benefit from some sort of détente with Bullies. We might strike a truce when we are not at risk of physical harm, when we have the leverage to hold them accountable for their part of the bargain, when we are prepared to tolerate their potential retribution, and when we are relatively impervious to their insults and threats. While not optimal, this may allow us to maintain our self-respect and relative comfort without having to abandon our activities and social networks. This measure certainly requires mental discipline and good assertiveness skills – which we can cultivate in part through practicing negotiation.
A Business Transaction, not a Relationship
It is helpful to distinguish two components of negotiations, the transaction and the relationship. While social interactions usually involve both these features, the Bully’s style is predominantly transactional, with little, if any, room for caring or concern for others. In bargaining with Bullies, we need to treat it as a business transaction, not as a relationship. Bullying conveys the Bullies’ basic lack of empathy for others. Any display of concern is typically only a ploy to gain the trust of the other, in order to achieve a more favorable outcome. Thus, it is best for us to “play our hands with our cards close to our vests,” (i.e., keep our feelings, intentions, and tactics to ourselves).
Some Tips for Bargaining
Attempts at discussing ethics with Bullies would simply be an exercise in futility. Recognizing this can save us much time, energy, and aggravation. Our attempts at persuasion are more likely to be effective when we can convince them that it is in their best interest to heed our requests or demands. Since we are typically in a one-down situation with them, we often have little leverage – it is here that developing alliances comes into play.
Holding Bullies Accountable
Bargaining works better in some situations than in others. Obviously, it is better to have leverage than not. If we don’t negotiate out of strength, our agreement may end up only a matter of appeasement. We might ask ourselves what pressure we can exert for Bullies to live up to their side of the agreement. Here, witnesses can play an important role, and how we comport ourselves can sway this informal jury. Also, a contract is enforceable only to the degree that the terms are clear and verifiable. This suggests specifying actions, rather than focusing on attitudes or intentions. It should be noted that some Bullies are notorious weasels who will use any excuse not to honor their agreements. With this in mind, we may want them to demonstrate good faith by honoring their part of the agreement before committing ourselves to our part. Furthermore, we probably should not agree to conditions we cannot readily reverse, if and when they renege on their concessions.
Benefits of Negotiation
Negotiation presents an opportunity to get some of what we want, when we are unable to attain it all. It also presents an opportunity for us to practice our communication and assertiveness skills. Furthermore, we can serve as role-models for others in similar situations. We also make a statement about our self-worth through our willingness to take a stand for ourselves.
R – E – S – P – E – C – T
Our advocating for ourselves is a way of commanding respect for ourselves. Even if this doesn’t make an impression on the Bullies, it may garner support and respect from those witnessing the bargaining, perhaps even among some of their base of support. And if the respect doesn’t come from outside ourselves, we are claiming our self-respect. As noted by Jeff Burns, a former colleague of mine who is no longer with us, respect does not come from others – rather, it is a gift we bestow upon ourselves. And we do so through the manner in which we conduct ourselves.
Practice Makes Better, Though Not Perfect
Having a healthy outlook and a readiness to assert ourselves with Bullies is necessary, but not sufficient, for dealing with Bullies effectively. We also need to develop our communication and negotiation skills for this process. As I stated in my article on conflict, assertiveness is an art, not a science. As such, it requires practice to develop the necessary skills to be effective at it. We can do some role playing with friends and allies, who can also coach us and give us valuable feedback to improve our approach. Also we have the option of a “dress rehearsal” when an actual Bully is being disrespectful, yet when there is nothing significant at stake. Such exercises can serve not only to develop specific assertiveness techniques, but also to desensitize us to the provocations that Bullies use to knock us off-balance.
A Caution about Role Playing
While such exercises can help us develop specific assertiveness techniques, they can also trigger unhealthy emotional reactions. It’s bad enough that Bullies disrupt our equilibrium in their presence, but they don’t have to be present to cause distress. Our planning and practice leads us to worry about anticipated future encounters and to replay distressing past ones . Thus, we could be intensifying the very feelings that disrupt our ability to assert ourselves effectively. Among other potential pitfalls, we could end up coming across aggressively, rather than assertively. The challenge is to prepare for the Bullies’ predictable provocations without traumatizing ourselves in the process. This dilemma calls for us to work at cultivating a healthy mindset, which we addressed in the section, “Breaking Free of the Bullies’ Web,” while simultaneously practicing assertiveness skills.
The Still Eye of the Hurricane
This poses quite a daunting challenge, somewhat akin to staying in the still eye of a hurricane. This is a rather apt metaphor for navigating in vicious cycles, which are practically inevitable when dealing with Bullies. And although the Tao Te Ching does not specifically refer to vicious cycles, it counsels us to stay in the center and let things around us run their course. This counsel suggests a policy of passivity in the face of Bullying, yet this should not be confused with capitulation. Passive resistance can be a powerful force. Gandhi’s campaigns around salt and textiles spearheaded India’s path to independence. The American civil rights movement employed sit-ins and boycotts to challenge segregation.
Achieving Calm amidst Conflict with Bullies
The eye of a hurricane serves as an apt symbol for dealing with Bullies. Still, we are confronted with the challenge of putting this image into practice. Some of us who meditate equate mindfulness with peace, harmony, and unity. From this perspective, conflict is viewed as a disruption, even of the natural order. Cartoonists often caricature this outlook as a yogi sitting on a remote mountaintop, periodically visited by Westerners seeking the meaning of life. A contrasting view affirms that conflict is a normal and healthy part of life, as I presented in Dealing with Conflict in Relationships. Can there two contrasting perspectives be reconciled, and if so, how?
An Alternative View: A Paradox of Being and Doing
One option is to view this dilemma of stillness and activity as yet another of life’s paradoxes, somewhat akin to engagement and detachment, belonging and individuality, and being and doing. As I noted in Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, these dualities consist of opposing tensions, which we can strive to balance. Two perspectives, previously addressed in this article, can be helpful here. First, we can work to keep our egos out of the equation. And second, we can remind ourselves that we don’t have the corner on the Absolute Truth. Practicing these two outlooks can help us to keep centered while still actively participating in life’s drama.
Questioning our own Outlooks
In applying this to the challenge of dealing with Bullies, we can monitor our thoughts, feelings, and attitudes as we learn and practice assertiveness skills and strategies. For instance, do we see Bullies as our enemies, or perhaps as wounded individuals who can do little better than afflicting others to escape their own pain? And do we view their insults as reflecting on our self-worth, or perhaps as a projection of their own self-doubt and insecurities? These and other challenges to our conventional perspectives can go a long way toward restoring our serenity without surrendering to Bullying.
Navigating Previously Blazed Trails
Fortunately, we don’t have to blaze a new trail in our pursuit. We have at least two disciplines that address both the experience and the activity of their craft – method acting and the martial arts. Both of these disciplines involve a total experiential immersion in their subject and a more detached reflection on their skill set – a melding of subjective and objective, or of being and doing. (My doctoral dissertation involved exploring a similar process in the development of a personal identity.) At this point, I will save this more esoteric detour until a later article, and return to a two examples. The first, the practice of method acting, is presented by Constantin Stanislavski in An Actor Prepares (which, by the way, was required reading in one of my graduate clinical psychology courses). We can apply this approach as we prepare for our role in taking on Bullies – perhaps we can draw inspiration from movies that document the rise and fall of demagogues, such as Citizen Kane or All the King’s Men. The second example, the practice of the martial arts, requires some extrapolation of methods of physical combat to the realm of verbal sparring. I address this application later in this article. And then there is the Buddhist tradition, with Zen and the Art of Archery, followed by applications in other arts. Whichever of these systems we wish to adapt, they can perform the triple functions of cultivating a healthy perspective on conflict, integrating and tempering our feelings, and developing our assertiveness skills.
Strategy Counts
While self-assertion is perhaps the primary method for challenging Bullies, we need to use it wisely. Strategy counts, not just in physical conflict such as wars, but also in verbal disagreements. We can apply some strategies from battles to our dealing with Bullies. Another source of guidance is gambling. As Kenny Rogers noted in “The Gambler,” we need to learn to play our cards right, to “know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” This perspective suggests the importance of doing a cost-benefit analysis, and one that recognizes that costs cannot be determined ahead of time, but only estimated. Since some Bullies can be quite ruthless and vindictive, we need to exercise caution in those cases. For this reason, I am including a “black box” warning that such assertive moves can be hazardous to our health and well-being.
When Bullies gives us openings through their abusive words and actions, we may be tempted to resolve a backlog of grievances all in one fell blow. It’s understandable that we would want to resolve an ongoing tension once and for all, but that’s not how it works. We humans are creatures of habit, such that one-trial learning is the exception, not the rule. We can pretty much count on having to revisit an issue again – and again. Bringing up past instances may build a case for our complaints, but it often develops cognitive overload – too much information to process effectively. Furthermore, Bullies are more likely to become defensive, or even redouble their abusive actions in the face of a full frontal challenge. An effective strategy requires patience and perseverance. Not to worry – there likely will be future opportunities to make our case, one skirmish at a time. And if by some fluke there aren’t any further instances, then the issue has in effect been resolved.
Wait for an Attack, but Be Prepared
When we understand that Bullies’ abuse is a matter of when, not just if, we often experience chronic stress, wondering when the other shoe will fall. It is quite natural to want relief as our tension mounts, such that we are tempted to call out the Bully, out of the blue. While this proactive move might give us some advantage in planning out our strategy, it opens us up to counterattack. (Our president apparently takes great pride in his skill as a counter-puncher.) Well-practiced Bullies can challenge this move by asking what they were just doing for us to bring this up. They can challenge our courage by asking why we hadn’t mentioned this before. Or they may accuse us of being overly sensitive and suggest that we just get over it. These charges are more easily deflected when we can focus on the Bullies’ current behavior as evidence of their disrespect and intimidation.
Applying Martial Arts to Verbal Confrontation
Principles of physical combat, particularly the martial arts, can be applied to verbal confrontations with Bullies. Occupying the higher ground offers an advantage, and in verbal disputes this means adhering to higher ethical principles, such as showing respect to others. This may make little difference to the Bullies themselves, who might view such self-restraint as weakness. On the other hand, this approach can earn respect from bystanders and potential allies, while diffusing opposition from the Bullies’ loyal followers.
The Best Offense is a Good Defense
Martial arts practitioners also recognize the advantage afforded by a defensive posture, with the recognition that we become off-balance when in attack mode. The Tao Te Ching cautions against making the first move and notes that it is often advantageous to give ground rather than trying to take it. This is consistent with a key principle of martial arts, which is to take the adversaries’ momentum and use it against them. Since a key goal in dealing with Bullies is simply to stand our ground, we offer Bullies no momentum to use against us. When we veer off course, such as with the primary goal of knocking the Bully down a peg or two, we can lose our balance and become more vulnerable to attack. Thus, when we are emotionally balanced and grounded, we are better able to stand our ground and to deflect the Bullies’ attacks.
“The Pen Is Mightier than the Sword”
Martial arts strategies are addressed primarily in terms of physical combat, yet the same principles apply to verbal jousting. It probably requires as much skill, if not more, to be effective in verbal sparring. The saying that “the pen is mightier than the sword” applies just as well to the spoken word as to the written word. Speech is generally more potent in its immediacy and nonverbal components, yet has the additional challenge of “thinking on our feet.” Thus, we need to be knowledgeable about the particular issues at stake when Bullies assert their entitlements and discredit the rights of others.
Taking our Arguments to Others
Since Bullies themselves are generally not swayed by logical discourse, attempts to reason with them are often futile. Yet they do not hold all the keys to power, and we can make our appeals to others who have authority. Take demagogues in government, for example. In a democracy with free speech and free press, the citizenry serves as the judge and jury when elections roll around. In this case, our oratorical skills may influence Bullies only indirectly, through compelling arguments to their constituents. In dictatorships, though, such leverage is usually lacking.
A Web of Bullying in the Real World
Of course, in the real world, the situation is not so cut and dried. Bullies and their cronies may be able to stack the deck through various backdoor strategies, such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money political contributions, and political dirty tricks. All of this should serve as a reminder that liberty, and all our other rights, require eternal vigilance. This insight suggests the need for a comprehensive war strategy, rather than ad hoc battle plans for skirmishes.
The Power of Symbolism
Although we are promoting verbal skills, we are not focused narrowly on logical reasoning. Bullies certainly don’t. Their language is more that of action and emotion than of thought. Those who depend on the fervent loyalty of their base are adept at using evocative images and symbols and emotionally-charged terms to sway their following.
Wall vs. Bridge
President Trump has been highly effective in using the symbol of a wall to drive home his “us vs. them” message of division. Logical arguments go only so far in countering such campaigns. As chance (or fate? karma?) has it, the graphic images of 9 minutes and 47 seconds of George Floyd’s strangulation under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer trumped his message. In contrast to Trump’s wall, the public outrage built a bridge that connected Americans across a racial divide.
Assertiveness Skills for Dealing with Bullies 1.0
It would be a monumental task to develop an assertiveness skills training manual for dealing with Bullies – there just are too many situations to cover. I know some must be out there, so I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. Still, I’m not aware of any such program based on a perspective of paradoxical conflict of values, as I have outlined on my website. Logic is not the Bullies’ strength, nor is tolerance for ambiguity. I would affirm that Bullies tend to be dogmatic in their beliefs and values, with their generally assuming black-or-white, all-or-none positions on issues. Within this frame of reference, though, it should not be too difficult to challenge Bullies by presenting situations in which their supposedly universal and absolute values are in conflict with one another. We have touched on some of these perspectives in the previous section on breaking free from the clutches of Bullies.
OK, an Example of Such a Conflict
Perhaps an example will illustrate this process. First, we want to posit that it is quite natural for parents to want what’s best for their children. For the affluent and well-connected, this might involve financial support and pulling strings (e.g., college legacy admissions for children of alumni) to get their children into prestigious colleges. Or it might involve setting up a trust and other financial arrangements so that their children’s inheritance is not significantly reduced by estate taxes upon their deaths. If we step back and examine these measures on a social or cultural level, we can recognize how the passing of wealth and privilege from one generation to the next plays a major role in perpetuating the disparity of opportunity between different socio-economic, racial, and ethnic groups. This is reflected in the dramatic contrast in savings between blacks and whites. What began as the cruel yoke of slavery, and then morphed into the discrimination posed by segregation, Jim Crow laws, and redlining in real estate and finance, can now be perpetuated through apparently innocent and subtle mechanisms supporting white privilege. I doubt that this example would cause any Bullies or their followers to lose sleep, yet it highlights the complexity of an issue for those privileged whites who endorse a social justice ethic. Still, we can seek out and find comparable examples of conflicting values relevant to Bullies and their followers.
A Call to Arms (Metaphorically Speaking)
I might challenge interested readers to identify specific values, beliefs, attitudes, or expectations espoused by Bullies they have known, whether in person or in the media. Then, consider the possible conflicts among these various features. Next, imagine how you might counter such messages in addressing the Bullies’ own value system. Finally, you might articulate your insight to others – perhaps in a letter to the editor of the local paper, in the case of an overbearing politician. This challenge provides the readers with an opportunity to practice applying the martial arts verbally, by using the adversaries’ momentum against them. I grant that this assignment would be a real challenge, but one that can help us in applying this model to actual real-life situations.
If you decide to take up this challenge, it might be helpful to review my two articles related to inherently opposing values,Living Rationally with Paradox and Muddling down a Middle Path. I imagine that some might accuse me of sheer laziness in palming this task off onto my readers. I would counter that such an assignment makes this article more of an interactive exercise, thus enhancing its educative potential for the participants. Besides, I don’t want to get too much of a head start on others pursuing this quest. Well, at least that’s my rationalization. At any rate, I’d welcome receiving such examples, that I might post on my website. Perhaps this has the possibility of developing some sort of workbook. At your request, I can either give you credit for your examples or preserve your anonymity. If you choose the latter, keep in mind that I would be getting credit for your contribution by default. You can be comforted by my assurance that plagiarism, not imitation, is the highest form of flattery.
Maintaining our Inner Balance
Keeping our poise in the presence of Bullies who have disrespected and intimidated us is a real challenge. They have a knack for pushing our buttons, such that we may get “so mad we can’t see straight.” Or we may fall under the spell of some other discombobulating feelings. This is where our practice at tolerating tension comes into play. With sufficient practice, we can find that stillness in the eye of the storm. We can learn to temper and channel our emotions so that they work for us, not on us.
Practicing Self-care
As we covered in “Breaking Free of the Bully’s Web,” we can cultivate a positive perspective on our challenges and ourselves. Enhancing self-esteem, facing conflict, having compassion for self and others, and being less judgmental all require ongoing effort. It is all too easy to fall back into old habits. Practicing meditation helps quiet the emotional storm, whether caused by real-time bullying, past memories, or worries about the future. Focusing our attention on the “here and now” can help with this.
Processing our Feelings
We can use supportive friends and allies as sounding boards. They can help us process our feelings, as I have addressed in Baring your Soul, Bearing your Feelings. On the other hand, avoiding conflict and numbing our feelings with addictions and distractions interfere with this process. While a strategic retreat can help prepare us for the Bully’s next move, we should avoid making it an unconditional surrender.
Choosing our Battles
We don’t have to confront every single Bully who insults, threatens or harms us, any more than an army engages the enemy at every opportunity. Bill Amend has aptly illustrated this point in Fox Trot, as well as commenting on our tendency for knee-jerk reactions to provocations. We can choose our battles, based on the criteria of what we have at stake, of our chances of prevailing, and of the severity and likelihood of a negative outcome. To accomplish this, we need to stifle our initial reflex.
Insult or Injury?
We should choose to go into battle when we have something tangible at stake, rather than it simply being an affront to our ego. The phrase “insult or injury?” can be a helpful mantra for asking ourselves if we are responding to a tangible loss or injury, or if we are reacting to an insult. If it is mainly an insult, this suggests that we are allowing Bullies to judge our worthiness by how they treat us. In this case, simply ignoring the insult may command more respect that addressing it. If a bystander would judge us harshly for not defending ourselves from a spurious insult, would we really value their opinion?
The Larger Social Context
We should recognize that it would be folly to ignore the larger social context of bullying. We are likely not alone in enduring the oppression of any single Bully. If they have practiced the Bully role sufficiently such that it defines who they are, then they probably have had numerous victims over the course of their career. And unless they are the occasional “lone wolf” Bullies, then they probably have their cadres of supporters. It appears rather unlikely that we will make any in-roads with hard-core Bullies, especially on our own. We stand a better chance at eroding away their power base of supporters, particularly if we run a smart, coordinated campaign with our allies.
The Bully’s Victim-Rebel Ploy
We have mainly addressed bullying in a narrow sense, as the interaction between Bullies and those they oppress — with one key exception. In this particular case, witnesses to the bullying assume a Rescuer role, supporting the oppressed and harshly criticizing the Bullies. Thus, a Bully-Victim-Rescuer vicious cycle has been established. Bullies often respond to this development with a “shape-shifter” maneuver, by complaining about being ganged up on. In assuming this secondary role of Rebel-Victim, Bullies are able to build a base of support, drawing from those who have felt disenfranchised, yet lacking in their own voice to address their grievances.
A Specific Example of this Dynamic Process
I recognize that this is only an abstract skeleton of real-life interactions, so I’ll provide an example to put some flesh on those lifeless bones. In introducing his presidential candidacy, Donald Trump blamed illegal Mexican immigrants for the plight of struggling average American workers. We can characterize his condemnation of an entire class of people for the offenses of a minority as an instance of bullying. This resulted in the wrath and censure of more progressive Americans for his unfairly casting a broad net of suspicion and disparagement over the Hispanic community. Their response allowed him to cast himself as a maligned Victim of the Washington elite establishment, whom he also blamed for neglecting average Americans in favor of special interests, including Hispanics. He thus cultivated a base of support among primarily white American workers, who had seen little improvement in wages in decades, while investors and their benefactors, the corporate executives, prospered. Thus, he achieved a Robin Hood-like Rebel status as champion for the little guy, while actually deflecting attention away from the corporate complex responsible for the historically inequitable distribution of wealth.
Finding a Receptive Audience
I recognize that those committed members of Trump’s base will take exception to this example. I am probably guilty of preaching to the choir, but I hope to appeal also to those who may describe themselves as undecided, independents, or neutral. There are sufficient similar examples to the one above to establish a recurrent pattern, though the cast of characters may vary (e.g., Muslims, the Chinese, the BLM movement). I admit that I have been short on details regarding the issue of the expanding income disparity between the working class and the investor/executive class. For this, I refer the readers to Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, who has been quite compelling in filling in the economic details, through his Inequality Media website, as well as his Economic Policy Institute.
Understanding the Bully’s Committed Followers
The dramatic arts do a good job of portraying the fervor that demagogues can stir up in their supporters. Willie Stark in All the King’s Men rallies his fellow “hicks” to his cause by playing the “victim-rebel” card against the political elite (He could use the h-word because he identified with it himself). Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane holds a similar sway over his true believers.
A Real-life Example
Yet we don’t need to refer to fictional works to help us understand this dynamic process. President Trump plays out his Victim-Rebel role to stir up outrage among his base. By proclaiming that the Establishment victimizes him and his followers, he stirs up their outrage as Victims. Then, by posing as the Rebel who can stand up to the system, he energizes their commitment to the cause and strengthens their identity vicariously. It is indeed ironic that he employs a Victim Role to consolidate his power, but that is not uncommon among Bullies. Wolves in sheep’s clothing can be quite adept at pulling the wool over their followers’ eyes, as they lead the sheep to the slaughter. Unfortunately, with the COVID-19 pandemic, this metaphor strikes too close to home.
What NOT to Do
It should be fairly obvious that disrespecting and disparaging the Bullies’ followers will only entrench them in the Bullies’ camp. As I have counseled a time or two, focus on their words and deeds, not on their character. Hilary Clinton’s off-hand labeling of Trump supporters as “deplorables” did much to derail her presidential campaign. Whether on its own or as a part of a broader contempt for the Trump followers, it may well have cost her the election.
An Alternative Approach
Instead, it’s probably more effective to explore with the followers their core values behind the support of their candidate. As we listen to their stories, we might notice how we share many of the same values. This is often the case even when we have reached quite different conclusions about putting them into practice. Next, we might probe for other values we suspect we have in common. Then, we might relate how we ourselves grapple with conflicts between these various values that we share with them.
Exposing the Trade-offs between Values
The above discussion prepares us to address the inherent conflicts within certain pairs of values. These include individuality vs. belonging, freedom vs. order, living in the moment vs. planning ahead, and adventure vs. security. Now all this is rather heady philosophical stuff, as I have addressed in Muddling Down a Middle Path. Yet Bill Waterston illustrates these paradoxes in Calvin and Hobbes, linked above, in quite down-to-earth terms. demonstrating how they are basic aspects of the human condition. I find them helpful for appreciating the practical implications of these basic aspects of the human condition. Hopefully, by sharing our own struggles with competing values, we might discourage the Bully’s fan base from a simplistic either/or, all-or-none, black-or-white value system that supports an “us vs. them” political mentality.
Keeping an Open Mind
Yet, there is a huge catch. If we want Bullies’ followers to be receptive to our perspective, we must demonstrate an openness to theirs. This does not mean abandoning our values or principles, by any means. Rather, we simply recognize that they are striking a balance between conflicting values in a different place on the continuum than we do. We also need to appreciate that there is no logical reasoning that establishes exactly where that optimal balance is. (I still adhere to a principle of the Middle Path. This states that positions toward the center of the continuum are more adaptive than those at the extremes.)
The Leap from Values to Policies
The above discussion has laid the groundwork for transitioning from values to policy. In other words, how do we translate our values into policy and action? Here is where having some factual information comes in handy. Having data to establish the nature of the problems, such as climate change, wealth inequality, or the national debt, can then help to define the issues. With this discussion, we can address whether their candidate’s positions on issues actually further their values.
Practicing Verbal Judo
By incorporating the base’s values into our discussions and identifying inconsistencies with their candidate’s positions and actions, we are engaging in a form of verbal judo, which I have introduced earlier in this article. Yet, this thought bears repeating: we need to be receptive to perspectives other than our own. If we are not, how can we expect to learn anything? Even if we do not bridge the gap between our views and those of the Bullies’ followers, we will have at least promoted civility – in ourselves, and perhaps in our adversaries.
Caveats about this Approach
This proposed approach to dealing with the Bullies’ support base probably comes across as idealistic and unrealistic. Perhaps it is better suited to those who are on the fence. I do not expect this approach to convert the ardent “true believers.” Their fear of and contempt for others shuts them off from recognizing their common humanity. This applies even when those others actually share similar issues and concerns. Rather than writing them off as “deplorables,” perhaps the best we can do is to commiserate with them. We can appreciate how their sense of alienation, powerlessness, and insecurity interferes with fulfilling their own American dreams. Note that I’m not recommending saying this to them in those terms. Nor am I endorsing their blindly following a demagogue as a valid solution to their plight.
Not All about Trump
The thrust of this article is on bullying, not President Trump. True, he’s so vain, he’d probably think this is all about him. That is, if he’d even bother to read it. I have simply used him as a classic example of systemic bullying, mainly because he serves so well as a readily available example. His public record saves me the trouble of compiling clinical case material and disguising it to protect confidentiality. There are plenty of others like him, including the mini-Trumps in Congress who enable his authoritarian style. In many instances, I am leaving it to the reader to connect the dots between the ideas in this article and examples readily available in the public domain.
Defining Ourselves through Identification and Dissent
Even though this article focuses on dealing with Bullies, the coverage is much broader, expanding to address our very identity. How we deal with Bullies can play a key role in defining our personal identities. Who we are is determined not just by whom and what we endorse, but also by whom and what we oppose. While the former identifies our qualities shared with others (e.g., religion, political affiliation, club membership, profession or trade, etc.), the latter declares what makes us different. And it is these differences which make us unique. Can we really say that we have individual identities if we don’t have unique qualities? Saying “yes” to ourselves sometimes requires us to say “no” to others. Otherwise, we would be “all things to all people,” – except maybe to ourselves. Without the willingness and ability to oppose others, we would simply be conformists. And with their incessant pressure for us to comply with their demands, Bullies pose an acid test to our individuality.
Beyond Tribalism
There is one qualification to the above characterization: we do not claim our individual identities when we always say “yes” to our allies and “no” to our adversaries. All we do is establish our tribal identity in an “us” vs. “them” polarization. We’ve all seen how well that is working in American politics. Instead, we need to use our own judgment to decide whether we actually agree with our friends. Bullies aren’t just limited to our adversaries – our allies can also pressure us to make decisions that may not be in our best interests. We also need to be open-minded toward those with whom we disagree. Without this, we’d fall into the Critic role – a milder form of bullying. Just because we disagree shouldn’t make them our enemies. In fact, we might learn something different from them, whereas our allies are likely just to teach us more of the same.
Epilogue
I hope that this perspective on dealing with Bullies is helpful. It’s not essential to buy into the whole package to do this introspective work – you can order a la carte, if you like. The various perspectives that are presented here do tend to hang together, though – you’ll find them interwoven throughout my website. They make up a sort of entrée.
No Rules, Just Guidelines
Readers will notice that this article proposes guidelines and suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules. The latter approach would be contrary to a basic theme of this perspective, that we are all responsible for finding our own way, though hopefully with support. This outlook is based not only on the absence of a comprehensive code of absolute, universal values for guidance, but also on the contradiction of many of these values in paradoxical polarities. (Did I mention my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life?)
Timeless Truth
Furthermore, you will note that I have cited few references to lend authority to my assertions. In fact, my most frequent reference has been to Lao-tzu’s Tao Te Ching, an ancient (yet timeless) book of Chinese proverbs. I encourage readers to read this short work for themselves, and I recommend readers to Stephen Mitchell’s 1988 work, which is as much interpretation as translation.
The Issue of Scientific Truth
With regard to the absence of scientific references, I recall a Sufi tale in which the sage is challenged by a skeptic for his lack of authoritative references in his arguments – to which the sage responded by suggesting that the reliance on such authorities implies a lack of confidence in one’s own convictions. While I hope that my readers find my various ideas compelling, I am by no means refuting scientific findings. Though my ideas are empically-based (i.e., derived from my own experiences), they lack the “evidence-based” certification that validates their Ultimate Truth. (Yes, I am being ironic, if not somewhat sarcastic.)
A Call for Scientific Review
I welcome feedback from psychologists and other mental health professionals that presents scientific studies that either support or refute the ideas presented here. And for those areas without conclusive relevant research, there may be a master’s thesis, doctoral dissertation, or scientific study to be mined. The challenge is to construct a research design that “operationalizes” the relevant factors in terms of dependent and independent variables. If I have lost you on this last point, then good – you have some appreciation for why I haven’t pursued academic psychology.
Happy Trails
In the meantime, I am trusting that you will evaluate my ideas on the basis of their relevance, reasonableness, and fit with your own experience. Readers have the right to disagree. I only ask that you do so thoughtfully and respectfully – for your sake as much as for mine. This would involve resisting two opposing tendencies. First would be a fault-finding dismissal based on a close-minded adherence to your preconceived notions. Second, and just as problematic, would be a total, unquestioning buy-in, so that you can apply the suggestions without questioning or critical thinking. I hope that you find a middle ground between these two extremes, so that you can continue exploring these matters in a spirit of curiosity, adventure, and awe. And if you like, keep me informed on your progress with this quest.
On first glance, our First Lady’s “Be Best” campaign appears straightforward and noncontroversial, even if grammatically awkward. My critique, though, is not so much one of grammar, as of meaning. A single word could clear this up. Does she call upon us to “be our best” or to “be the best”? Though a subtle distinction, the implications can be major. Whereas both appeal to our sense of self-worth, the former promotes intrinsic self-esteem, while the latter supports conditional self-esteem. Since these terms are likely unfamiliar to many, this calls for further explanation.
Intrinsic
Self-Esteem
Intrinsic self-esteem is based on the notion that we all have basic self-worth, regardless of our status in life or achievements. Our Declaration of Independence affirms this in stating that “all men are created equal,” as long as we interpret “all men” as “all people.” Colloquially, it is expressed in the bumper-sticker slogan, “God don’t make no junk.” The call to “be our best” means living up to our potential, whatever that may be.
Conditional
Self-Esteem
In contrast, conditional self-esteem refers to feeling good about ourselves based upon our attributes and achievements. Here, the standards are relative, based upon how we compare with others. That comparison might be in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, dominance, achievement, or some other criteria. This version of self-worth is rather transient. As salesmen say, “You’re only as good as your last sale.” In its extreme, winning becomes everything. Unfortunately, for every winner, there is at least one loser, if not more. To “be the best” means to be better than all the rest. For example, each year only one team is Superbowl champion, versus 31 teams who lost along the way. When self-esteem is primarily conditional, “loser” is a loaded term: even achieving your personal best is not good enough.
In Praise of
Intrinsic Self-Esteem
Thus, I am endorsing intrinsic self-esteem as the better foundation for achieving our sense of value. First, it is a more stable source of self-worth, less susceptible to disappointment and loss. Second, when firmly established, it depends somewhat less on the ongoing support of others. Relying on our own self-assessment reduces our vulnerability to critics, naysayers and bullies. Even so, the encouragement of our supporters can be quite helpful. This addresses the central concern of our First Lady’s initiative against bullying. Third, when we fall short, we can still console ourselves with the notion that we gave it our best shot. This view is reinforced when we commit ourselves to learning from our mistakes. And fourth, practicing intrinsic self-esteem encourages cooperation over competition, allowing us to tap into the power of teamwork.
Putting
Conditional Self-Esteem in Perspective
In making the above argument, though, I am not saying that conditional self-esteem is all bad. In fact, with a basic foundation in intrinsic self-esteem, conditional self-esteem augments our motivation to achieve our goals. The call to be our best means living up to our potential, whatever that may be. When runners compete by this standard, they are just as interested in achieving their personal best as in winning.
Summary
Hopefully, I have presented a persuasive argument supporting intrinsic self-esteem. Conditional self-worth and competition still have their place and can motivate us for achievement, yet require a basic foundation in intrinsic self-worth to function effectively. Otherwise, the struggle will be all about winning and losing, and the particular issues at stake in the conflict will get lost in the shuffle. And when each side effectively blocks the other side from winning, both sides lose.
Recommendations
With the above considerations about self-worth, I recommend a subtle modification to the “Be Best” campaign: “Be Our Best.” (I had initially supported “Be Your Best,” but later decided that this is more of a team project.) I would encourage our First Lady to modify her slogan to clarify her meaning. I could be wrong, but I assume that her intended meaning is closer to “be our best” than to “be the best.”
Benefits of Updating the Slogan
By revising the motto our First Lady would be modeling healthy self-assertion, provided she remains true to her convictions. That might involve calling me out on my unsolicited feedback, should she find it impudent or disagree with it. Or she might challenge her husband on his excessive emphasis on winning. She could point out how it defines others as losers and divides our country. Her tactfulness in doing so would demonstrate that assertion does not imply disrespect or bullying of others. Furthermore, the modification would convey the message that the pursuit of our ideals is an ongoing challenge, one achieved through successive approximations. It might even help revitalize her campaign by enlisting more support, as the project has been rather silent lately.
A Caveat
I temper my presumptuous suggestion by acknowledging that I have no inside scoop on Melania Trump’s situation as First Lady. Her “Be Best” slogan might be the best she can achieve, given the current political climate. Since we can only do our best, by definition that is good enough. Of course, we can always work at enhancing our best through understanding and practice. In any event, it has presented a springboard for me to promote my views on self-worth, hopefully without disrespecting our First Lady in the process.
Just as the former Soviet Union banished its dissidents to the Siberian gulags, so, too, did the Vatican exile its freethinking clergy to settings where they would cause minimal disruption among its faithful. Such was the case with Brother Costello, whose natural curiosity led him to question all matters, even what the Church considered to be established doctrine. In his case, the Church not only exiled him to a remote cloister in rural Ireland, but also promoted him to the position of abbot. This particular monastery experienced considerable tension among its monks, and the Church establishment apparently intended to give Brother Costello a taste of his own medicine with his new assignment.
When the new abbot arrived at his post, he found the monastery in total disarray, with its few remaining residents constantly bickering. After a few weeks of trying to achieve harmony among the friars, the new abbot was at his wits’ end. Still, he needed to address the crisis at hand, and the monks’ rancor interfered with his clarity of judgment and ability to devise a strategy. It was at this point that the abbot imposed an overnight silent retreat upon his subordinates, if only to allow him a brief reprieve from the chaos.
The Retreat
On the evening of the retreat, Abbot Costello had the monks, Brothers Thomas, Paul, Sean, Michael, Richard, and Patrick, sit in a small circle in the chapel, facing inward. The retreat was to begin at dusk, with silence imposed upon the monks until dawn. He began the event by lighting a candle, which he placed at the center of the circle. He then got up from his seat, indicating that he would return at sunrise.
The retreat was rather uneventful for the first several hours, until the candle burned itself out, plunging the chapel into total darkness. This had an unsettling effect on the monks, who became quite squirmy and fidgety. Finally, Brother Thomas could stand it no more, breaking the restless silence, “Brother Paul, go get another candle and light it – I can’t stand the darkness!”
Brother Paul fired back, “Go get it yourself, if you can’t stand it – I’m not your servant!”
Then, without a moment’s hesitation, Brother Sean blurted out, “Brothers, we’re supposed to keep quiet!”
Then Brother Michael chastised them, “You losers can’t even keep your mouths shut for a few hours! Now you’ve messed things up for all of us.”
Brother Richard quickly countered, “Not if we keep quiet about it. We don’t have to tell on ourselves.”
Brother Patrick was feeling rather smug at this point, as he was the only monk who had kept his silence. Still, he was rather miffed that the other brothers apparently didn’t realize this. “Hey, don’t include me in this – I’m the only one who hasn’t talked.”
This exchange transpired in a matter of minutes, after which they said not another word until dawn. Still, it was a rather noisy silence, as they all mulled over in their heads the blame for disturbing the peace. The remaining hours until sunrise seemed to drag on forever.
The Review
When Abbot Costello returned at dawn, he sat down in the empty seat and asked them how the retreat went. All hung their heads and no one spoke up. At this point, the abbot realized that extracting any confessions from them would be counterproductive. “Very well, then, we can start the second part of the retreat. Even though you’ve remained silent, I trust that you have all had your meditations disrupted by intrusive thoughts, even if you haven’t spoken them out loud. Or do we have any living saints among us who weren’t bothered by disruptive thoughts?”
Still, the monks remained silent. Perhaps they considered the question rhetorical, but more likely they suspected it a trick question.
“Very well, then, we’ll proceed. It really makes little difference whether you’ve spoken your thoughts out loud or kept them to yourselves. In a way, though, it’s unfortunate that you kept your silence, as speaking your concerns out loud would have highlighted the more troubling challenges to your serenity. So who would like to start us out by sharing the thoughts that disrupted your tranquility?” The monks’ silence continued, yet the abbot remained patient, waiting out the monks until they could no longer stand the tension.
The Reckoning
Finally, Brother Sean spoke up, stating how it was quite upsetting to him when others could not or would not obey the rules and guidelines. The other monks glared at him for implicating their breach of silence with his admission. The abbot ignored the implied accusation, instead directing his curiosity toward how Brother Sean developed this obsession with unquestioning obedience. Brother Sean explained how his parents were quite strict with their rules and severe with their punishments. Thus, he learned to obey the letter of the law and to become quite anxious when his brothers and sisters broke the rules.
Abbot Costello reflected upon this, only commenting, “Interesting.”
Soon, Brother Richard chimed in, noting his having had similar parents and rather unruly siblings. He noted how his parents had punished all the children when anyone got into trouble. While he could not control his siblings, he encouraged them to be sneaky, in order to escape detection. He recognized how he developed a habit of “playing with his cards close to his vest”, such that he was wary of revealing too much of himself.
Abbot Costello considered this, then commented, “Interesting.”
Next, Brother Michael related his similar experiences with parents who were quite demanding and critical. Thus, he learned that he could never do anything adequately. Michael had decided that the best defense is a good offense, and his parents were excellent role models for this. Thus, he learned to be highly critical, with both himself and others. He noted how he often caught himself being just like his parents in his judgmentalism, a trait he despised in himself.
Abbot Costello pondered this, then commented, “Interesting.”
Brother Thomas then noted how his family background was chaotic and at times even violent. He described how his parents often fought over the kids. As the oldest, Thomas tried to impose order on his younger siblings to keep them from upsetting their parents. He acknowledged his bossiness, but had felt it justified in order to keep the peace.
Abbot Costello thought about this, then commented, “Interesting.”
Brother Paul shared how he could relate to Brother Thomas’s family situation, though from the standpoint of the youngest child. As a child, he had resented his older brothers for bossing him around. This developed into a gnawing resentment toward elders and authorities.
Abbot Costello contemplated on this, then commented, “Interesting.”
All the monks had spoken, except for Brother Patrick, who appeared deep in thought. He then admitted how he, an only child, had difficulty relating to the others’ stories. Furthermore, his mother teaching him at home allowed only limited contact with his peers. Patrick felt rather awkward interacting with other children, who often teased him for his lack of social graces. The young boy heeded his mother’s counsel, that he was special and others were simply envious of him. Thus, he learned to discount others, if not outright ignore them.
Abbot Costello meditated on this, then commented, along with the chorus of the other brothers, “Interesting.”
The abbot then shared his opinion that the brothers had made good use of their silent retreat. He noted, though, that the larger challenge lay ahead of them. One particular goal is to keep the lessons fresh in their mind. A second task is to apply this understanding to their relationships with one another. The brothers agreed to continue with the retreats and to apply the new insights about themselves and each other to their daily lives.
The Issue of Darkness
Before adjourning, the abbot noted a key feature of the retreat that the brothers had not addressed. He asked the monks about their reactions to darkness when the candle went out. The brothers were rather wary of this inquiry, as they had not mentioned it in their discussions. Still, the experience had been so unsettling that they decided that it deserved further attention. This unfinished business also allows us to explore the meaning of the darkness for ourselves.
The above story is an embellishment and Westernization of a popular Zen parable. The original can easily be found on the internet by googling “Learning to Be Silent parable.”